Can We Get On With The Program?

This morning North Korea successfully detonated a nuclear device during an underground test.

One leg of the Axis of Terror has now gone nuclear.

Can we please knock off l’affaire Foley for a while and attend to business as Americans?


President Bush said this morning : "The transfer of nuclear weapons to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States," and we would hold North Korea fully accountable to the consequences of such action."

Even China is berserk calling the test "brazen", and South Korea will "react sternly".

Japan, of course will re-arm offensively for the first time since the Second World War.

In short, the focus of the geo-political world shifted eastward a few hours ago, and the Mideast , Iraq, and Afghanistan get pushed to the back burner for the time being.

I ask you now: Can we rest the Foley thing for a while and respond like Americans, and not Democrats, Republicans and the like? In other words, can we (collectively) put our bickering aside and deal with this problem as a country? Tell me what you think.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at October 9, 2006 3:30 PM
Comments
Comment #187149

Agreed, Eagle. The country and the world face far more pressing issues than those that the media latch onto. That said, Foley-Gate will not go away anytime soon, nor should it, as a) more background information on that case will surface daily, and b) the stench and willingness of the GOP to turn a blind eye to his transgressions for the past 6 years is truly despicable.

So while I agree with you that our priorities for long-term security have been somewhat subjugated to the crises du jour in Congress, what can we as a country do about it? Place more economic sanctions on a country that already has no economic vitality? That will only affect those who can barely makes ends meet already. Go in with military force? North Korea has a huge standing army, and ours — well, is bogged down in W’s war of choice. There is no easy solution.

I’m all for looking to the future instead of the past, especially when it comes to national security. On this we agree. But the only way to put bickering aside, as you have stated, is to have a real plan, an actual strategy - not a slogan like “stay the course” - to effectively deal with the North Korean threat. Problem is, what should that plan be? And do have the balls to follow through with it?

Posted by: Mister Maggo at October 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #187151

I’m up for options. Another country, run by someone others feel is less than a great leader, acquires the ability to use nuclear weapons. I’m not sure what we can do. Sanctions? That mainly affects the populace which, at this point, is just happy to be alive. The likelihood of making times tougher to force an uprising against the current North Korean regime by the people is not high.

If we act militarily, which seems impossible at this point now that North Korea can nuke invaders, what would our goals be? Regime change? A democratic country? It hasn’t worked yet in Afghanistan or Iraq, and I’m not convinced the death toll in any case is worth it.

International pressure is the best the world can do. Tell them it was a bad idea. That’s what we did to France. Admittedly, France is an ally of ours and the leader is slightly less of a showboat than Kim Jong-Il.

The short of it is, to protect yourselves against current nuclear powers (and here’s my bias against the current U.S. administration) who don’t have an issue with attacking random countries for their own benefit, you need to have nuclear weapons.

North Korea has successfully declared itself free of potential assault by American forces. Kudos to them if they only have nukes for that one purpose. God help us if they have other purposes in mind, but you can say that of any country with nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Thomas R at October 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #187153

SE,

Maybe now we can put aside the word “appeasement” for awhile and learn the meaning of the word diplomacy again.

The nuclear powers that now exist, are capable of rendering this planet uninhabitable, diplomacy is the only way out of the conundrum we now face.

Your admiration for Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s swagger is meaningless, if we continue to be lead down the road to world-wide war.

It’s time to understand that the friend of my friend is also my friend, and start finding the common ground together to stop this madness.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #187155

The Foley incident need to be investigated and those that knew of his actions need to be punished right along with him. But we do have other problems that need the attention of Congress as well. And these problems are serious and have been unaddressed by both sides and are getting worse. For one party to try to put that business aside just to focus on this one it down right stupid.
But this is an election year and everyone is gonna try for as much political leverage as they can get.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 9, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #187159

SE - You read my thoughts when I learned of the new member of the nuke club.

Used to be that politics were not a 24/7 proposition that applies everywhere in the world. I am not sure it is possible (election season, after all) to set partisanship aside and do what is good for the country. Won’t be long before Iran will light up, unless we put a rapid hurt on NK.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at October 9, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #187160

SE,

I’ve lost track of how many times in the past few years it was fair game for Republicans to attack the motives or allegiances of Democrats. Now that another crisis hits the front page (one that EVERYONE knew was coming) it’s so important to work collectively and ignore what is a serious Republican scandal. Sorry, no dice: you wouldn’t be saying that if Foley were a Democrat.

Posted by: Steve K at October 9, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #187162

Get over it people.
This is the political world created by Atwater and his successors. There was genocide in the former Yugoslavia and all we heard about was the blue dress and a “new” use for cigars. There was mass death in Somalia and all we heard from the right was what?. It’s a shame that it’s Foley and not the rapeing of the middle class, the destruction of our childrens future, and Iraq that’s the cause of the GOPs downfall. But I’ll take it.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #187163

Rocky et al

This Korean “crisis” is the 10,000 gorilla. Not so much for our immediate security (although these skunks WILL sell a suitcase nuke to the highest bidder, I think), rather to the stability of that region of the world.

Notwithstanding the immediate threat to South Korea, what about Japan? Afetr 65 years hatred still exists over the rape of Korea by the Japanese, not to mention centuries old animosity between the counrties.

PLUS (and this is the biggie) OUR troops,stationed there since 1950, are now at risk.

Foley doesn’t belong on the same planet, let alone discussion, I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 9, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #187228

SE,

“PLUS (and this is the biggie) OUR troops,stationed there since 1950, are now at risk.”

Our mere 35,000 troops in South Korea have always been at risk.
Did this somehow change overnight?

If Kim Jung Il uses nukes in South Korea he puts himself at risk as well.
Pyongyang isn’t that far from Seoul.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #187230

Nope, sorry. Nice try, but no way is the Foley incident going to be swept under the rug. Yes, Korea is a problem, and a big one, but as the saying goes: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

We still give out traffic tickets when more severe crimes are committed. All must be addressed.

Foley et al remain a great big fat problem for the GOP, N. Korea or no N. Korea.

Deal with it. Be responsible. Don’t try to sweep it away in an obvious emphasis game.


Posted by: Bingo at October 9, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #187231

I think the American people can concentrate and work out more than one problem at a time.

What’s the matter? Is the president having trouble with it? Is congress?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 9, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #187237

This could have been a dud.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 9, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #187243

Stephen,

Even if it is a “dud,” North Korea’s nuclear program will gain a lot of valuable data from the test, making it likely that the next test won’t be a dud. The same thing happened when our good ally Pakistan first tested a nuclear weapon.

Posted by: Steve K at October 9, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #187246

“Can we please knock off l’affaire Foley for a while and attend to business as Americans?”


If the libs did that then there wouldn’t be a “War on Terror”; they can’t fight anyone but the Conservatives and the Christians.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 9, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #187249

Stephen,
Thanks for the link. I was suspicious. Their first try, they complain complete success with no leakage whatsoever? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, they will keep trying. Our choices are extremely limited, always have been. Like it or no, the Japanese will eventually respond by going nuclear. The country with the most influence with North Korea is China. It is their call. If they want to shut down the North Korea, they can at any time.

Unfortunately, it comes down to another example of living with MAD. The policy of non-proliferation died a quiet death when Pakistan went nuclear. If any country had doubts about the desirability of developing nukes, the US removed those doubts with its invasion of Iraq.

The need to deter US attack makes faking a nuke test even more tempting for the North Koreans. They may or may not have them. Regardless, it is easy to see why they would want to convince everyone else. No point in being served up as the “October Surprise” by the Bush administration this year.

Posted by: phx8 at October 9, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #187250

Not a dud, most likely, but possibly a fraud.

They could have just blown up 1000 tons of TNT or so to make it appear that they’ve tested a nuke. Their announcement that “no radiation was released” seemed very quick and maybe an example of protesting too much.

Of course, if it is a fraud and this should escalate, we’re eventually gonna hear that “Bush lied” and there were no WMD in North Korea.

The fact that by all appearances they do have WMD programs and are trying to develop them further is irrelevant.

We’ve been down that road before.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 9, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #187254

“The fact that by all appearances they do have WMD programs and are trying to develop them further is irrelevant.

We’ve been down that road before.”

Except with Iraq, the nuclear intel all turned out to be false. (We know N Korea has nuclear material to work with.)

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #187262

rahdigly,

“If the libs did that then there wouldn’t be a “War on Terror”; they can’t fight anyone but the Conservatives and the Christians.”

Oh….

Never mind.

Posted by: Rocky at October 9, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #187266

I think “no radiation released” is a defensive posture for adherence to the nuke treaties. Of course NK is not exactly predictable, unlike rahrahdigly and nearbeer.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 9, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #187290

SE

Note that N. Korea got nukes on your favorite administration’s watch, while they were busy attacking Iraq, who never had any uranium even and who had ended all their WMD programs, and focusing on Iran, who is at least 10 years away from such capabilities. Why, oh, why can’t you see how utterly useless these guys are at foreign policy? There’s no good money to be made if we’re not attacking a country, but if we attacked N. Korea we’d have to deal with China, who is not in our pocket. Better to stick to the Middle East and make the big money there.

I’m not sure what it would take for you to wake up and smell the coffee, but I hope some day you will.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 9, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #187311

Good idea. However, it’s hard to overlook the probable motives to distract from Republicans’ corruption and the Foley case. Hopefully, it won’t be totally forgotten. No doubt the investigations won’t reveal much until AFTER the elections. Still, the media will run it into the ground like everything else, and give more substantive isses barely a mention.

But, in general, yes … we have other problems too. However, no matter what the problems are, what hope is there of any solutions when Congress is less interested in the nation, than securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of power, so they can continue to ignore our pressing problems growing in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #187317

Se,
I see everybody agrees that what Foley did was wrong. But I also think that some democrats knew what he was doing and did nothing until now. We need to get focus on North Korea now. Let the FBI handle the Foley Incident And I hope both parties will start concentrating on the Issue with North Korea.

Posted by: Bigpapa at October 9, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #187319

First, the likelihood is that this wasn’t a fraud. It’s hard to get millions of pounds of explosives to detonate all at once, and the profile of a nuclear device detonation, even a fizzle like this might be is very distinctive.

Plutonium, like the source linked says, is easy to refine, hard to engineer properly.

We don’t have time to dawdle around, true enough, but we shouldn’t build them into an apocalyptic threat, and act according to such. The politics of panic and bluff is not going to win wars or defuse conflicts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 9, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #187321

It seems that Rumsfeld was on the board of the company that sold nuclear power plants to North Korea.

“(FORTUNE Magazine) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it’s surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What’s even more surprising about Rumsfeld’s silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

The company is Zurich-based engineering giant ABB, which signed the contract in early 2000, well before Rumsfeld gave up his board seat and joined the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, the only American director on the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001, has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. Nor could FORTUNE find any public reference to what he thought about the project. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, the Defense Secretary’s spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February that “there was no vote on this” and that her boss “does not recall it being brought before the board at any time.”

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/index.htm

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #187322

Sicilian Eagle,
I really can’t agree. I can understand the gravity of the North Korean test, but this is something that could have easily been foreseen. Furthermore, the Dear Leader is not going to wake up tomorrow and state it’s to time to use nuclear weapons on the United States.
The Foley scandal on the other hand shows a total lack of honor in Congress. I know that there have been past offenses from both parties that against the congressional pages/staff that have been far worse. Still, that does not excuse Foley’s behavior or the cavalier behavior of the Republican leadership. I went to a school that had an honor code which stated ” A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal nor tolerate those who do.” If that is conduct expected on a cadet then how much greater should the conduct be for a Congressman/Congresswoman?
Hastert’s behavior is disgusting and it just illustrates how corrupt much of our leadership is. I think a far bigger danger is how far our standards for leadership have fallen in this country. If it takes the Foley scandal to arrest this trend, then let the spotlight shine.

Posted by: Thuycdides at October 9, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #187323

Stephen, you could be right, but exploding millions of pounds of conventional explosives at once would still be an engineering feat easier to pull off than actually exploding a nuclear device. And so far we don’t know if the explosion did happen all at once. All we know is that there was seismic disturbance that looks like a big old explosion.

I’ve been reading up on this, and it sounds like we should get a fairly definitive answer one way or another once scientists have a chance to carefully examine the seismic data. One curious thing is that it’s supposedly much more difficult to create a nuclear device that small.

This would have been a 550 kiloton explosion, according to the data. By way of comparison, the Hiroshima bomb—quite small by today’s standards—was a 15000 kiloton device.

I don’t see anybody panicking.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 9, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #187324

Tony, why would you even want to go there? Rumsfeld sat on the board of the company? When he wasn’t in government? When that wasn’t his final decision to make?

It was the Clinton administration’s IDEA to do that. They hatched the entire plan and signed their names to it, so bringing in Rumsfeld’s role as a bit player is pretty silly.

My point isn’t to turn the debate back to Clinton and start blaming him for things that happened in the past. The finger-pointing and dragging up past history is petty, and worse, irrelevant, at this point. It’s more important to think about what happens next when the stakes could be so high.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 9, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #187327

SE,
Good post. I have come to really enjoy your give-and-take with posters of all (political) persuasions.

Let’s see, you ask…. “can we (collectively) put our bickering aside and deal with this problem (N. Korea’s “nuke”) as a country?”

What a nice thought! Unless you read the question, as I do, ” can we all rally around the flag and the prez, and forget about the profoundly corrupt and cynical actions of a leadership which will do ANYTHING to remain in power?”

The question of how to deal with the advent of North Korean nuclear weaponry will best be addressed by statesmanship- an area in which your boy is completely handicapped.

I would re-phrase the question thusly: “Can Bush’s handlers somehow imbue the boy with enough of the precious commodity known as diplomacy in order that the entire globe does not suffer a permanent nuclear winter?

BTW, Eagle, how is that Bounce, Bounce, Bounce thing going for your boy anyhow?=)

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 9, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #187328

Neo-con:

Because Rumsfeld is also the man shaking Saddam’s hand in the 80s.

History is a good place to learn lessons, not lay blame. I think Rumsfeld has learned no lessons.

(btw - I’m not laying blame with Rumsfeld… just thought the article was interesting. You make of it what ever you will.)

Posted by: tony at October 9, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #187330

Tony, Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand because he was a diplomat sent to Iraq by the United States. It wasn’t because they were buddies, and that occured just before the US imposed sanctions on Saddam for using chemical weapons.

I’ve seen pictures of Madeline Albright shaking hands with Kim Jong Il. What does that mean about her? Absolutely nothing.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 9, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #187332

There is one thing that needs to be examined.
From the pictures on the news, the hardware, the gauges, the panels, etc. are from, at best, the 60’s. If this is an indication of their technology, then the “fizz” is understood as a result of old technology. They still need to be dealt with. They are hard headed, stubborn, and not willing to give in when negotiating. I think we should assist Japan and South Korea as much as possible to reach a level that allows them to defend themselves without US action.
This is a problem that is not going to go away peacefully.

Posted by: tomh at October 9, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #187333

Steve Miller et al

I think both the North Koreans and the Iranians (as well as Hamas and Hezbolah) are rootings for the Dem in the election, I think.

Why? They hate Bush worse than Murtha and Dean and the rest of the crew over there on the left.

I also think that this issue pushes Foley way back in import. What is Joe Public going to care about? A hated enemy going nuclear or a pervert sending instant messages? That being said, I am a citizen of a state (Massachusetts where one of our reps (Gerry Studds) sodomized a page years ago and another (Barney Frank) also engaged in similar behavior. Both Dems.Thus,this incident is purely a political play 4 weeks before the election.

On the bounce….maybe Stephen Daughtery was correct…a dead cat bounce. Then again I am saying that on the heals of the Foley thing. This North Korean incident, I hate to say, may be the incident needed to turn the eyes of America back on to the War on Terror.

Frankly, I think it’s still a jump ball, although I am happy the Joe Lieberman seems to be pulling ahead in his race.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 9, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #187345

SE,

“What is Joe Public going to care about? A hated enemy going nuclear or a pervert sending instant messages?”

Wow, I didn’t know that North Korea was “hated”.

“another (Barney Frank) also engaged in similar behavior.”

Where’s the link that proves this alegation?
Or do you choose to indict Frank, just because he’s gay.

Posted by: Rocky at October 10, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #187353

As a liberal Democrat I must be honest and say that the Foley scandal has been a lot of fun. But your’re right, recess is over and time to get back to work. As far as what to do about North Korea, that’s a tough one. The best solution that I,ve heard is one put forth by a news analyst (I can’t remember who he was) who said that we should go to the Chinese and say: If you get rid of this idiot in North Korea, we will withdraw our troops from South Korea.

Posted by: trublu at October 10, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #187354

This would have been a 550 kiloton explosion, according to the data. By way of comparison, the Hiroshima bomb—quite small by today’s standards—was a 15000 kiloton device.
Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 9, 2006 09:11 PM

Whoa Whoa there Neo-Con, your decimal point has gone awol. In fact, the North Korean blast has been estimated at anywhere from 500 tons, to 1 kiloton to 15 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was in fact 15 kilotons, not 15,000 kilotons. FYI a kiloton, as the name implies, is one thousand tons.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 10, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #187357

“I’ve seen pictures of Madeline Albright shaking hands with Kim Jong Il. What does that mean about her? Absolutely nothing. “

It means everything. Our leaders have been diplomats & business partners with our current enemies within the past 30 years. Saddam, Kim Jong Ill, Saudi Royalty… So why do we have to fight them (or not fight them now) when we so easily worked with them less than a (or two) decade ago?

If you listen to Bush’s speeches, it’s as if some of the people were spawned from Satan to corrupt our world. He never discusses that we were once much closer to our enemies. They are EVILdoers — the axis of evil… FREEDOM HATERS!

If these people were so easy and good to do business with in the 80s or 90s, why are they so absolutely evil today? Have they changed or have we changed? OR were the perceptions changed to fit a political agenda?

At my business, my client list is full of good guys, jack asses and outright assh#les. One thing - over the past 20+ years, they’ve pretty much stayed the same, as far as their characters go.

Posted by: tony at October 10, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #187366
I think both the North Koreans and the Iranians (as well as Hamas and Hezbolah) are rootings for the Dem in the election Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 9, 2006 10:35 PM
So, let me get this straight… You’re justifying voting on party lines because you have an unsubstantiated opinion that you know what a bunch of religious fundamentalist terrorist murderers want.?. My opinion is they want another incompetent bozo republican who will continue to feed them new recruits and degrade our military into a shriveled shell. Do you know that there have been several THOUSAND AWOLs in our Iraq troops?

2) Your recollection of Studds and Frank is fatally flawed. It was Bauman(sic) a Republican who was charged with “oral sodomy” (I don’t even want to know what that is). Studds had a ten year long relationship with the page (Inappropriate when the guy was a page, for which he was censured, but not illegal, no criminal charges ever. As if sodomy would still be illegal in MA anyway) and Franks hired a former prositute into his staff, with his own money. Possibly innapriopriate, not illegal, also never even charged with anything.

3) As for a “political play”, that’s just “too f’in bad” You reap what you sow, and this is karma for your party. It’s a well and richly deserved retribution.

If you want to have a real discussion, you need to stick with appropriate facts and opinions that can be substantiated. Not vapid talking points that your sheepish followers can munch on. E.g. your telling quote “turn the eyes of America back on to the War on Terror”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #187368

Basically - sodomy is doing anything with your winkie that can not result in making babies.

Posted by: tony at October 10, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #187382

tony,

Thanks, but I don’t think felatio & cunnilingus = sodomy, oral or otherwise.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #187384

Actually, it does. I was surprised when I saw a Anti-Clinton tour bus that said Clinton was guilty of sodomy.

Here’s the definition…

“Sodomy is a term of biblical origin used to characterize certain sexual acts that were attributed to citizens of ancient Sodom. The term is most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males, or between a male and a female. The term “sodomy” also may include non-coital sexual acts ranging from oral sex to paraphilia. It is sometimes used to describe human-animal sexual intercourse (a.k.a. bestiality, zoophilia), and in the German language, this is the primary use of the term. Sodomy laws forbidding certain types of sex acts have been instituted in many cultures.
The term “sodomy” derives from the name of the ancient city of Sodom, which according to literal readings of the Holy Bible, was destroyed by God for its sins (see Sodom and Gomorrah).
The English term buggery is very closely related to sodomy, in concept, and often interchangeably used in law and popular speech. In the various criminal codes of United States of America, the term “sodomy” has generally been replaced by “deviant sexual intercourse,” which is precisely defined by statute. The remaining criminal interest is largely confined to acts where the victim did not or could not legally consent.”

Posted by: tony at October 10, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #187395

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of those secondary definitions and I was not aware that it was in my current repertoire… I wonder if Sic was using it in that form or not,

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #187397

SE,
“I ask you now: Can we rest the Foley thing for a while and respond like Americans, and not Democrats, Republicans and the like? In other words, can we (collectively) put our bickering aside and deal with this problem as a country? Tell me what you think.”

Judging by the posts on here, that answer would be a (big fat) No. I made the point earlier that libs are only good at attacking the conservatives and people within this country; yet, when it comes to our real enemies, they down play it, saying “their not really a threat”, and blame the conservatives. That’s not going to help our country, though it will probably help them regain their power; b/c that’s what it’s all about (Power). It’s pathetic and it never ends. It was a good attempt though…

Posted by: rahdigly at October 10, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #187400

“The Foley thing” is a serious problem. I know it’s not fun, but we can’t rest it. This is not about politics. This is about a sexual predator abusing his power to seduce minors.

It is not “bickering” to say that this is absolutely unacceptable.

It is not “bickering” to demand ALL who covered up his actions for political gain must be punished.

Just because there is a problem - and you’re right, it’s a very serious and complicated problem - in North Korea, we don’t need to “rest the Foley thing for a while” … in fact, we must do the opposite.

If we have leaders who will shield a pedophile for partisan politics, then how are we to trust them when all of our lives might be on the line?

Like it or not, these two issues DO exist in the same planet, country and conversation.

Posted by: Chuck at October 10, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #187408

Chuck,

As a liberal I have to disagree. First, this isn’t pedophilia, that’s for prepubescents.
If Foley weren’t a Repub and it wasn’t near election time, and the Repubs weren’t about to lose their majority, then the Repub response would have been to gather the wagons; “presume innocence” let the “trial decide” etc…
And I would have agreed, basically, with it. I don’t care if he’s gay, I’m concerned that this was abuse of power over a young person, I’m very concerned although not surprised by the cover up.
In the end it should have been left to his voters what to do. But, since the GOP base is antigay, he would have certainly lost anyway, so he quit and the coveruppers are left to fend for themselves.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #187413

Dave
It is also about hypocrisy
As was pointed out earlier — international crisis were hailed as “wag the dog” incidents “cooked up” by Clinton to cover up the picadillos
We had efforts to stop genocide and other atrocities blocked because the Republican majority were slathering at the opportunity to bring Clinton down — and they contributed alot of money to the National Debt in order to “get the dirt” — meanwhile thousands, (if not millions) died.
So now all of a sudden they are above all that Partisen Bickering???
How handy?
(if you were a REAL conspirisist (??) one could envision this as a Repub ploy to get the voters fearful of the “evildoers” again (and their minds off Foley and Iraq) in order to sell the “Republicans on White Horses coming to save you” routine (saving you by totally destroying the Constitution — I LOVE that one — and a large number of our still citizens BUY that CRAP!!!)
But
I won’t go there.
that would be accusing them of “wag the dog” and we don’t do that eh?

Posted by: Russ at October 10, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #187414

SE: The short answer is: no. The longer answer is: Neither the Republican nor Democratic members of the House & Senate have anything to gain politically by working together any time soon. There is a possibility of cooperation in the coming new Congress. However, I would not hold my breath on that. Beyond the that, it is impossible to say when things might change.

On a lighter note, in an effort to cool our passions with a little humor permit me to share with you what one of my students said in my graduate international relations course today:

She noted that in the past, marriage was usually a very successful means of diplomacy between countries. Then, she wondered: If GWB married Barb & Jenna (his daughters) off to the president of Iran and to Psycho Kim of Korea, respectively, would that reduce the tensions between our respective nations?

Everyone got a chuckle from this and it provided me the opening to expound on the theory of alliances. :)

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 10, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #187421

Eagle..

See? You’re wrong! The Dems have the country focused on Foley and to hell with North Korea.

So let’s all STOP focusing on North Korea and start dealing with all the scandals we can.

Let’s prosecute Foley 4 weeks before the election.

Let’s prosecute all murderers in the Senate and STOP sweeping his crimes under the rug since 1969.

Let’s prosecute ALL Representatives that have $90,000 in their freezer.

Let’s prosecute ALL representatives that drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs that crash their car while “going to vote” at 2 a.m.

Let’s STOP sweeping ALL the criminals’ crimes under the rug and prosecute ALL of them within the next 4 weeks…and let’s make SURE the headlines say NOTHING about North Korea…because obviously a good scandal is MUCH more important than a crazy guy with nikes.

Posted by: Jim T at October 10, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #187423

So much for cooling our passions and having a rational discussion.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 10, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #187428

We most assuredly ARE getting with the program.

…the program of voting out the imbeciles who got us into this mess in the first place.

Posted by: RGF at October 10, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #187431

Dr. Poshek…

Oh, I see. Prosecuting Republicans is a national priority…while prosecuting Democrats is not “having a rational discussion”.

I get it now…

Posted by: Jim T at October 10, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #187432

Jim,

How do you know Jung (Karl or Kim) wears sneakers, much less Nikes? lol….

Dr P,

Didn’t marriage work becuase of hereditary leadership? Are you implying that BushCo is a dynasty? Abidahubi isn’t, but Kim is.

Russ,

I was skipping the obvious “values” politiking and “Dems do it too” of the standard GOPer.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #187437

Jim T: (1) to prosecute and to discuss are not equivalent verbs; (2) to rant and to discuss are not equivalent verbs.

Dave1-20-09: (1) Alliances by marriage are not limited to cases of hereditary leadership. (2) I was not implying anything… my student was simply trying to apply a diplomatic tool to a current problem — and she was fundamentally correct as to the importance of alliances with one’s otherwise-enemices (similar to the alliance of the UK, US, & USSR during WWII — the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend approach).

There is strong evidence that one factor that prevented the Cold War from becoming a “hot war” was the previously held alliance between the US and the USSR. Both sides, through the 1980s, still appreciated each other for that old alliance and hence, kept the temperature 4 or 5 degrees lower than it might otherwise have been. Also, it is argued that that old alliance provided important insight to each side of the other’s thinking and this was very important in the resolution of the Cuba missile crisis. Equivalent to a child’s testing of his/her parents as to how far he/she can go.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 10, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #187438

enemices=enemies… sorry for the typos

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 10, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #187442

Jim T

You are being disengenuous.
North Korea’s march toward becoming a nuclear weapon wielder began during Bush’s first term. It’s nothing new. Nobody is choosing to prosecute those who hid Foley rather than to deal with North Korea.

If anything, we PUSHED them to becoming a nuclear power by demonstrating our resolve attack nations that DON’T already have WMD’s. From theri point of view, it was self-preservation to go nuclear in light of how militaristic the U.S. has become.

All your messege demonstrates is the strength of zeal that makes it possible to be so very partisan and stubborn as to actually hide and then defend a pedophile for the sake of politics.

But let’s get back to the business of driving the rest of the world into a corner so they ALL feel the need to go nuclear! That’s the way to a better tomorrow, republican style!

Posted by: RGF at October 10, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #187443

Will you children behave! This is not debate it’s name calling….

Posted by: Art at October 10, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #187448

Get on with the program??? Maybe we should get STARTED with the program… This administration has been so busy with smoke and mirrors in Iraq, that they dropped the ball and let this happen in N. Korea.

Posted by: vbugg at October 10, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #187456

Dr. P.

Re: BushCo dynasty; It was a joke, mostly.

Re: “Alliances by marriage are not limited to cases of hereditary leadership.”; Really? Do you have examples?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #187457

vbugg: One must consider the posibility that N. Korea was intentionally allowed to happen. The current crisis is a neo-con’s dream come true.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 10, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #187458

Dave1-20-09: A contemporary example would be East Timor.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 10, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #187476

Dave1-20-09…

Well, I guess he COULD blow up the world in his NIKES! HA! You caught me with my finger on the “i” key instead of the “u” key!

RGF..

Gee, I wish it WAS Bush that pushed North Korea into the nuclear arena (Then we could all say,”It’s all Bush’s fault!”). But…sadly…it was an “appeasement” government (no names mentioned here) that agreed to give North Korea two nuclear power plants if they didn’t develop nuclear weapons. Then that “appeasement” government, once they found out that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons anyway, sent a certain female Secretary of State that had a penchant for wearing cowboy hats and lizard pins (no names mentioned here) to North Korea to conduct negotiations (which, predictably, failed). North Korea learned quickly that certain American Governments (no names mentioned here) would give them food, nuclear power plants and anything else the North Korean’s little hearts desired as long as they promised not to develop nuclear weapons (which they did anyway since they didn’t have to spend money on feeding their people…America was doing that for them).

To say that the Bush administration was to blame for North Korea developing nuclear weapons is simply misguided…OH WAIT!!! I’M SORRY.

It’s ALL Bush’s fault!!!

Posted by: Jim T at October 10, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #187499

But - Jim T. - you know that they had UN inspectors in No Korea and that their nuclear program was haulted under (no name here) … and it wasn’t until the “axis of evil” speech - when S Korea was in direct talks with N Korea… N Korea immediately suspended talks and started their nuclear enrichment program.

Can you tell me a single benefit or concrete reason from Bush and his “axis of evil” speech?

Posted by: tony at October 10, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #187507

Neo-Con Pilsner-

The speed of a nuclear blast is far greater than that of a conventional blast. A nuclear blast irradiates everything in a certain area and vaporizes it, creating the blast off of that. A regular blast would typically be set off by something like detcord, or if you’re really hard up, good old fashion fuses.

To make it look nuclear, the explosives would have to explode at nearly the same time, and you’d have to do that with detcord. While Detcord is very quick, it still takes time for the detonation to travel along its length. It’s advanced physics to set this off, and the slightest error would through things off noticeably.

So, the Occam’s Razor way to look at this is that all things being equal, the North Koreans likely detonated a nuclear device that fizzled.

As for it being a geological event? They’re fairly distinct from explosions, especially nukes. Usually, they’re a hell of a lot deeper, too.

As for Panic? I’ve seen nothing but that. Every since 9/11, every response from this party has been one of desperation and high emotion, rather than a calmly, cooly considered, rational strategy. What does it tell you that we’re defending torture, trying to bluff powers that obviously are fine with being isolated, so long as they’re getting attention and respect.

This is a deluded dictator trying to make himself look big. Our only problem is if he succeeds, and then the problem is proliferation, not direct attack. The best thing to do is to feed his insecurities, while subtly moving him and his country into a position where we have the advantage, and we have more control. We’re not going to do that all that well if the most people can think of is starting wars that don’t yet need starting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #187516

SE
Any relationship between North Korea and the war on terror is, at best, tangential. What a red herring to throw in that the N. Koreans, Hamas, and Hezbollah would like the Dems to win. What does that have to do with anything? That is, if it were true at all? And if North Korea was a nation that encouraged or exported terror.

Not only is having the type of people who you would like to have at your back at a biker bar at the helm of our country not helpful to us now, it is the very reason these countries are hastening to develope nuclear weapons at a much greater rate than they would have.

I think Tony’s post above is correct. The barroom bluster and rhetoric from the Great Leader was a wonderful motivator. Isn’t that really the reason we are where we are now? That, and the fact that we dropped the ball by focusing on the useless Iraq fiasco to the detriment of the hunt for OBL?

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 10, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #187532

Why not keep Foley, N.Korea, Civil War in Iraq all going.

Foley a republican voted to invade Iraq (along with a lot of Dems), Iraq the weakest nation of the so called Axis of Evil(and the one bush flex his muscles with instead of using his brain), N. Korea one that Bush should have worried about to begin with along with Iran.

Yes if N. Korea has the bomb now(since we have no firm confirmation other then what Kim says), we should do something but we need to get those that are the handlers of Kim to do more. Russia and China should take the lead on this, and let us take a back seat if possible.

Posted by: KT at October 10, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #187541

Dr P,

East Timor??? When was that, and details please? I’m assuming you’re referring to before colonization, but I thought they were feudal then. which to me is hereditary.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 10, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #187586

Steve K,
If Foley were a Democrat there would not be a scandal, just business as usual. After all, sexual preference is a ‘private’ matter. Ask Bubba!

Posted by: MaxD at October 11, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #187715

Yo, tomh, what happened here?

…The Al-Quida/Saddam Hussein connection is about to be blown. Documents are about to be released to show a lot of activity between Al-Quida and SH. … Posted by: tomh at December 29, 2005 07:34 PM
Posted by: mental wimp at October 11, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #187766
The blah blah is about to be blah blah
An applicable Epitaph, or should it be epithet?:
GOPer Coup
(2000-2006)
RIP
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 12, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #188203

You republicans are a hoot! As soon as your side gets in a load of trouble its ” cant we get on with regular business” You all seem to have forgotten Ken Starr and good ol Newt and the relentless “Bubba” bashing. At least he had the decency to have inappropriate behavior with girl, you moral highgrounders.

Posted by: DEL at October 14, 2006 6:57 PM
Post a comment