UPDATE: NORTH KOREA FIRED THREE MISSLES - ONE FAILED IN FLIGHT.

The Taepodong-2 missile could reach Alaska. North Korea has test-fired two missiles which are reported to have landed in the Sea of Japan minutes later.

The first missile was launched at 0332 Japan Time (1832 GMT) and crashed into the sea 600 km (373 miles) from the Japanese mainland, NHK TV said.

The second was fired at about 0400, Japanese news agency Kyodo said.

A third long-range missile failed in flight, a source told Reuters news agency. CNN said it was the controversial Taepodong-2 missile.

The Taepodong-2 has a range of up to 6,000 km (3,730 miles), putting parts of the US within striking distance.

Japanese government officials were quoted earlier by the country's media as saying the first two missiles were most likely to be short-range.

See the range of North Korea's missiles
The US and North Korea's neighbours have been on heightened alert in recent days amid suspicions that Pyongyang was preparing to launch the Taepodong-2 from the Musudan-ri launch site in the north-east of the country.

Before the launch the Japanese government warned Pyongyang that firing the missile would be a grave and provocative action.

Japan and the US have said they would consider a range of options - including economic sanctions - in response to any such launch.

On Monday, Pyongyang warned it would launch an "annihilating" nuclear strike if its atomic facilities were pre-emptively attacked by the United States.

Washington dismissed the threat as "deeply hypothetical" and urged the North Koreans to return to six-party talks aimed at curbing the country's nuclear activities. The talks stalled last year.

North Korea had agreed with Japan to a moratorium on missile tests in 2002 and this was reaffirmed two years ago.

The last time North Korea tested a long-range missile was in 1998, when it launched a Taepodong-1 over northern Japan.

Firing off THREE missles sure sounds like a bit more than just a "test flight" -- it sounds like an attack.

Arent these the guys the libs say want nuclear power for peaceful purposes? You guys better wake up....

I say there should be NO negotiation with these guys...we need more aggressive posturing..

Washington dismissed the threat as "deeply hypothetical" and urged the North Koreans to return to six-party talks aimed at curbing the country's nuclear activities. The talks stalled last year.

Why is it we are still talking and they are doing all the action? What do we do now, pacifists?

Arent these the guys the libs say want nuclear power for peaceful purposes? You guys better wake up....

Posted by boaz at 2006-07-04 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


DO You honestly think they would have done this if it weren't for the Madman that WE have in the WhiteHouse attacking countries that never attacked the United States. It's self defense Baby used to it.

Larry

Self defense? Self defense??????

Cmon Larry,

Even you dont believe that now do you????

Washington dismissed the threat as "deeply hypothetical" and urged the North Koreans to return to six-party talks aimed at curbing the country's nuclear activities. The talks stalled last year.

Why is it we are still talking and they are doing all the action? What do we do now, pacifists?

Posted by boaz at 2006-07-04 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sabre rattling that is all it is. They have to show they are not weak they won't back down to the United States. Dubya got us into this Mess with his arrogant attitude. You can thank Dubya for this.

Larry

Cmon Larry,

Even you dont believe that now do you????

Posted by boaz at 2006-07-04 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:


You betcha North Korea seen how The United States Invaded Iraq so they prepared themselves to Defend themselves. After all Dubya declared them the axis of evil did He not.

Larry

hahahahahahahah
hahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahaahhaa

Last week the Pentagon put our Missile Defense system in AK, and CA on full alert...

Today, they are saying these three missiles were never a threat to the United States...

You know what...By invading IRAQ UNILATERALLY we CRIED WOLF, and now we don't have the BONA FIDES to do a damn thing about this provocative incident...

Van Hipp says that the Unites States should launch a preemptory strike on the North Korea Missile sites...

Now this is getting excited...

SCAREY

Just a few minutes ago, a CNN reporter covering this missile launch by N. Korea just came on the news and she said she asked her military sources what they thought would happen next and if we (USA) would be doing anything about it. She said her military sources' response to her was:

"KEEP YOUR EYE ON JAPAN"

This is getting good...

Good? Possible nuclear exchange is good? WTF dude.I am glad Maine isnt on any tatget list that i know of.

well the one that could hit us didnt go very well......you know the one....the one, or rather the technology, that the clinton whitehouse sold to them.............

"the one, or rather the technology, that the clinton whitehouse sold to them............."

As opposed to, say, the support given to the Mujahiddin by the Reagan administration... which supported a then unheard of bin Laden which led to... well, we know how that ended.

Or, as opposed to, say, the support given to Hussein by the Reagan administration... which led to his gassing the Kurds which led to... well, again, we know how that ended.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, BL2.

Hans

wow it's Clinton's fault - shock! horror!

Controlledpairs, Maine used to be on all the lists when the Bomark missiles were operational...Hell they had them in Bangor, Limeston, and a couple of other bases, I think Brunswick....

look how the repubs are pissing there pants over a dud.
our country has never tested a missle before....how dare some other country do so. nuke em...right repubs?

In the old days of SAC, Loring Air Base was HPT1 for Maine. Not anymore however. Also the Portsmouth subs were a good tatget too.

FOX NEWS is reporting that a SIXTH missile has been fired within the last 30 minutes...

Van Hipp was on Fox earlier saying we should HIT their launch sites and of course FOX can't control their enthusiasm for a hit...

And that big Submarine communication antenna down there by Machias was a target...hundreds and hundreds of antennas all connected and grounded in some way to communicate with Subs all over the world...weird place...

my father was at Loring during WW2, aircraft mechanic...B-29s would come from Europe to Azores and over to Loring...He used to have to go to the Azores too...

Ding ding ding ding!

bushlovertwo wins the "Quick, bring up Clinton!" Award for this thread. In less than 10 minutes. Not bad.

pssst, bushlover, Clinton isn't president any more. It's 2006. You're guy has been in charge for years and is responsible for what happens now. Accept responsibility for a change. Party of personal responsiblity, remember? Ring a bell?

"What do we do now, pacifists?"

Well you tell us righty tighty!

I suggest you get up on your hind legs and holler real loud, "Yer with us or agin us!"

Then holler next, "Ye kin run but ye cain't hide!"

Then smirk, and grin, and snarl, "Bring 'em om!"

Then stuff a sock down your crotch and get the Navy to bring a carrier in and turn it away from the shore so you can have a pilot bring you in in front of a big sign and holler "Mission Accomplished!"

That's all it takes, reality doesn't mean a shit to you.

Just saying it's so makes it so.

We won, freedom democracy for all!

For all except for them awful queers, them wimmin, and them poor black folks down Narlins.

Oh yeah, 'cept for them sneaky Meskins too.

You dammed phoneys!

Chris, what kind of military might does Japan possess now...I know for years we prohibited them from having much?

Why is it we are still talking and they are doing all the action? What do we do now, pacifists?

Posted by boaz at 2006-07-04 05:18 PM

Actually, I think this shows some desperation on their part, and a little egg on the face too.
First we should laugh at them, and then say we aren't going to reward bad behaviour. Stop being such asses, and then we'll talk with them.

BLT,
Remember how NorKor was on the verge of collapse about 1997? Even South Korea was making preparations for millions of starving refugees.

Then Jimmy Carter thrust himself into the middle of it and 'brokered' a deal. Clinton went along with the Carter deal to save face.

So, thanks to Jimmy and Bill, the NorKors bought enough time to finish their weapons systems.

Also, Japan is non-nuclear only so long as they believe the US protects them. they could have weapon-ready nukes within four months.

"ssst, bushlover, Clinton isn't president any more. It's 2006. You're guy has been in charge for years and is responsible for what happens now. Accept responsibility for a change. Party of personal responsiblity, remember? Ring a bell?"

pssst, Sassy, don't hit Bushlover with too many facts in one post. You'll cause his head to explode. Too much reality at once isn't good for him. Remember...Rush is his god.

The Republican's have controlled the House and Senate for quite some time now, and Bush has been on the job for 5 years...When in hell are these Republicans going to do something about North Korea...

seems to me no matter what the problem the Republicans only solution is to blame past administrations....ARE they ever going to take RESPONSIBILITY...

Mista Kurtz you forgot the wax turkey dinner. Republiconfabulators reward every one with a wax turkey.

Oh and BTW NKorea has had nukes for years. They have neer hidden that fact. So what does Bushpussy do? Goes and attacks a country that doesn't. Fucking coward.

"...the NorKors bought enough time to finish their weapons systems."

As opposed to, say, the support given to the Mujahiddin by the Reagan administration... which supported a then unheard of bin Laden which led to... well, we know how that ended.

Or, as opposed to, say, the support given to Hussein by the Reagan administration... which led to his gassing the Kurds which led to... well, again, we know how that ended.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, vernon.

Hans

And we went into Iraq On a hunch? We knew that this radical in N.Korea had the artillary prior to the Iraq invasion and still insisted that Iraq was the real threat. cant blame it all on the Repukes either. Some Dems were scared to buck this broomstick cowboy and went along with the nonsense. Now? We will have to deal with this. We also knew that Iran was playing dirty next door when we invaded Iraq. W. chose a hunch over a smoking gun. Stupid politics!

Like the Muslims who can take back the Islamic religion from the extremists, the North Korean people must rise up and get rid of Kim Jung Dung II and take back thier country. Those people in the north are not enjoying life for sure.

reports out of clandestine regions state that the same USN Guided Missile Cruiser that fired the alledged fatal missile attact on TWA Flight 800 in 2000 in route from New York to Paris, is indeed the same ship which has been spotted just off the Japanese coast at 12:30 yesterday morning. Inside sources have been indicating that similar ordinaces were used to destoy the missiles shortly after lift off. In fact one has been recovered from the sea bed in tact. Possibly being able to be studied for future counter weaponry research.

Yeah I forgot that wax turkey, sorry.

We still aren't sure if this was the Taepodong 2 missile.

It might have been the shorter-range No-Dong -- or, as it's more familiarly known to Koreans, the "Rush Limbaugh

SCAREY

Chris, what kind of military might does Japan possess now...I know for years we prohibited them from having much?

Here's what Wikipedia had to say:

Japan's military is restricted by Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan that states that, "The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." Thus, Japan's current constitution prohibits the use of military force to wage war against other countries.

Japan's military is primarily consisted of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. Its military budget is estimated to be the sixth largest in the world at around $48 billion per year. The forces have been recently used peacekeeping operations and Japan's recent deployment of non-combat troops to Iraq marked the first overseas use of its military since World War II.

"Deeply theoretical" was the status of the Iraqi threat in 2003. Looks like Bush is taking theory a bit more seriously these days.

The problem with the US doing anything about missile launches is that the NK have a whole range of military options open to them if attacked short of all-out war.

Sure, the NK's would lose and all-out war, but then again---You'd be hard-pressed to find any actual winners on either side.

well the one that could hit us didnt go very well......you know the one....the one, or rather the technology, that the clinton whitehouse sold to them.............

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2006-07-04 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


WOW You republicans sure are Mature ain'tcha I swear if I made excuses for My bad behavior when I was growing up I would have been whipped and sent to my room. Boy howdy You guys sure claim to be ADULTS but Your excuses state otherwise.

Larry

Now, let's all recall the Bush One-Percent Theory---

If a country has a one-percent chance of striking at the US with WMD, this in itself should be regarded as a complete threat towards the US requiring pre-emptive responses.

Except that it never was that simple, was it? The Bush Doctrine was implausible, unusable on it's face.

The NK's are sending signals that, maybe they aren't crazy enough to hit us first, but they are damned sure crazy enough to take as many of us with them as possible if they are hit.

Oh and FYI it wasn't the United States who sent Nuclear Weapon plans to North Korea THAT distinction goes to one of Our supposed Allies PAKISTAN or have You all forgotten this already Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??

Larry

The scrariest part of this story is that if a madman, got lucky and sent a missle or 2 to the us it would kill thousands. Then what? I am sure our intel guys are "on top of it" ,I feel safer now.

Arent these the guys the libs say want nuclear power for peaceful purposes? You guys better wake up....

Posted by boaz at 2006-07-04 05:16 PM


I call BULLSHIT on Boass. SHow mw one post where someone said N Korea wants NUkes for peaculu purposes. Just one dickhead.

As opposed to, say, the support given to the Mujahiddin by the Reagan administration... which supported a then unheard of bin Laden which led to... well, we know how that ended.

Or, as opposed to, say, the support given to Hussein by the Reagan administration... which led to his gassing the Kurds which led to... well, again, we know how that ended.

Posted by Hans at 2006-07-04 08:35 PM | Reply

Has this anything to do with North Korea? Well, of course not. Why on Earth would you post something relevant to the topic when you can throw up flatulence?

should be peaceful.

Why on Earth would you post something relevant to the topic when you can throw up flatulence?













Posted by vernon at 2006-07-04 09:20 PM


hahahahaha, ggod one Vermin! Nice charge from teh party of deflection!

"Has this anything to do with North Korea?"

As opposed to..

In contrast to...

A juxtaposition...

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't..."

On this 4th of July, the Drudge Retort reminds us how hateful, anti-American, and dishonest most Republicans and Conservatives really are.

Hans

No nukes is good nukes!

So Li'l Kim tried to launch a massive missile?

It was supposed to last a while and go a long way?

It ended up petering out after about a minute?

Some scientists and military types were surprised.

Kim Jong Ils mistresses, however, were not.

"Deja Vu all over agin" fer them.

Now Krazy Kims nasty nuclear tipped sabre rattling is dismissed by BushCo as "deeply hypothetical"?

Whoa, that's deep, man!

They say "still waters run deep"

And it's true sometimes they do.

In Dumbya case they're more like a stagnant pond.

Thanx be to Dan4th fer the wapo linkage!

Sounds like an excellent book...

"

The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, BL2.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2006-07-04 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:
]



you know hans when you rebutt in such a clever way with no personal bullshit like most of your liberal bros......it sure makes it hard to say go fuck yourself........so I wont......LOL

pssst, bushlover, Clinton isn't president any more. It's 2006. You're guy has been in charge for years and is responsible for what happens now. Accept responsibility for a change. Party of personal responsiblity, remember? Ring a bell?

Posted by Sassy at 2006-07-04 08:14 PM | Reply |



psst......SISSY......I mean sassy....

believe it or not...this history of the world did not start in 2000 and shit happened before bush was inaugurated.....
TWICE.....hee hee.

ah hans.....you then had to go and spoil it.......you said the same thing to someone else...........part of clever is not using it again....well for a day or two.........


and lisa......in the words of one of the top three presidents in the last 100 years......."Well.,,,there you go again"..
again with your hate speach.....better watch out for those glass windows.........

and why couldnt we have just happened to run a test of or rocket interception systems at the same time.....and as long as they fired a rocket, it would have made a good target........

LOL Rushlover...I spoke the truth...not hate. You see the world while looking through rebublican glasses...spewing your hatred towards anyone who is not a republican.

Truth be told..you're really not important in my book...your opinions therefore, aren't either.

It's just pathetic that you're so arrogant, that's all.

Sassy:

Notice how he sidesteps the Bush years, again, not acknowledging them.

LOL

Brainwashed.

wonder what the 'unitary executive, war president, deciderer-in-chief's' gonna do now?
the RNC spin machine has been trying to paint gw as a resolute, inspirational war president; a neo-churchill if you will. he even lapped it up. so he went around issuing ultimatums, branding countries 'evil', sermonising, spreading freedums. the RNC nightstick caucus here on drudge would always bang on about how gw was a virile man of action, unlike his effete, coiffured predecessor. there were those who even hallucinated that gw would order a pre-emptive strike on the no ko missile sites (yeah right!).
but true to form, when the no ko's make the first move, the reichwing retreat to past pathologies; 'it's clinton's fault (TM)' (and jimmy's too).
so, what were those serious consequences that the president mentioned again?
RNC playbook rule no. 56738....when der deciderers 'frailities that do suffer in exposure' are shown, always blame it on clinton (tm)'.

and I guess thats why you support my being silenced from the post from ozzark, eh?
and you can take your book and go to hell.....

I will continue to show where liberals are bad for america and where they are onsided and biased against anyone daring to question what they consider to be thier authority just because they were in power for 40 years and basically did nothing but greeze the slippery slope in any number of issues.......

and here is the thread of an issue that I can remember little if any debate about from the left.....their boy clinton was going to sell them shit to make this happen regardless........and I didnt hear an outcry then from dems about presidential power..........


but again I forget....that I have no right to speak of any subject not on the neo-mccarthist party's (liberal dems) accepted list

cant wait for nooner....

jesse jackson was in houston this week and he was just heard in a protest in front of bp.......british petrol......
watch for the news that BP will be sending some millions to the rainbow coalition and we wont hear of rascism at BP again........

"I will continue to show where liberals are bad for america"

You have shown nothing!!! You're laughed at!!

You think you have any credibility??? LOL!!!

You're consistant insults on libs, your constant deflections, your constant void of reality, have only proven one thing....you're not interested in anything but spewing your Rush talking points.

How sad that a man your age has no opinions of his own, other than what you're feed through a radio by Rush.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that Libs don't want success in Iraq.

Avoiding that issue, are you??

LOL

Like I said...you can't answer because it's just a talking point from Rush.

You're so plastic, your transparent!

lisa .lisa lisa.....

dont have a hernia over it........you just cant understand how any of us on the right have the balls to question you and your liberal buddies on any issue......libs have gotten so used to carte blanche on things that they have a problem with the right having a voice......and thanks to the retort boys and girls we have a better voice here than on any conservtaive blog....since we are in the belly of the liberal beast right here..........

I will give you a sliver of credibility on this 'discussion' between you and me when you give the same treatment to liberal bullshit as you give to anyone else..........9 to 5 it wont happen......

oohrah.....the dems have also done nothing but look like they want nothing less than an americn defeat in the middle east........they are just too arrogant and blinded by hate to see it.........

cant wait for the nooner........dumbasses in california.....(where else)......had a burn the flag party to celebrate the 4th......of one of the names of the celebrants was....poison ivy....nooooooooooooooo not in california..........

why cant punks like these do this shit where I can get to them..........

"you just cant understand how any of us on the right have the balls to question you and your liberal buddies on any issue.."

You don't question anything...you throw out insults on every post. You must have your keyboard set up with a speed "lib" button so you don't have to spend as much time typing it out.

AND...there are plenty of posters here on the "right" that I have excellent discussions with. No insults...no bashing...just plain old fashion conversation.

You're body would go into convulsions if you ever tried that.

BTW....prove your statement, coward.

Oohrah:

That is just one person's opinion.

My problem with Rushlover, is that he consistantly takes a whole entire people and blankets them with his nonsense, in almost every single post, every single day. When one stoops to that, they hold no credibility with me. It just proves to me that he is narrow minded, brainwashed and just plain stupid.

Back to our discussion:

I think most people who disagree with Bush, realize, he is NOT America. They can seperate the "man" from the country. Most of us want success in Iraq as the ultimate end, even though we are dead set against us being there in the first place.

To fail in Iraq, only hurts our country as a whole. Our world reputation is at stake...although enough has been done by Bush to ruin it already, we need to succeed in Iraq.

IMHO...Bush has and will continue to fail on other issues...Iraq need not be one of them.

:why cant punks like these do this shit where I can get to them"

Yea riiiight!

You're too cowardly to back up your statements on a blog, let alone go face to face with someone!

Laughable.

These missle tests went a lot better than I thought they would. The missles didn't even reach Japan, so they are obviously lightyears away from being able to hit the US. Like a teenager who cuts themselves, NK is just trying to get attention because they are jealous of all the talk about Iran.

oorah @ 9.25, 9.37;
in all your commentary in which you try to polemicize that the opposition benefits if the nation as a whole fails in it's objectives, you seem to believe that the ruling party has the benefit of the nation in mind, not their own party ideology.
the ideological underpinnings of the iraq war were laid out in the PNAC declaration. did the authors consult with the nation as to the wisdom of such an enormous undertaking?
that's my issue with political tribalism and facile thinking. your argument only assumes two possibilities. namely, if the ruling party SAYS they have the nation's intrests at heart, then those in opposition surely do not. put that way, perhaps your error will be clearer to you.
to understand the origin of such a trivialization of politics, we need to go back to buckley's nat. review and a 1969 essay titled, 'shall we let america die?'
the NR contributor (donald zoll) proposes that the concept of america (as a liberal polity) cannot withstand competing codes and extremes in content (political) and thus should be put to death by 'expediential fascism'. this fascism was not to be in the original sense when all aspects of life was under the aegis of the state, but in the general sense in which authoritiative resolutions of a number of political and social questions must be imposed on the political dialogue.
take that basic thought, denude of the academic justifcations, dumb it down to the point of infantilizing it and you have your standard issue harangue delivered by hannity, o'really and the cohort of reichwing propagandists. the liberals are only interested in power; they'll do anything to get it back, so we have to do anything to keep it.
one of the conceits of the totalitarian mindset is that reality itself must yield to party ideology and that mindset is well represented in today's GOP-aligned right (iraq, iran all bushista foreign policy basically). from there it's only a few goose steps to the conclusion that those who persist on interpreting reality without the supposed benefit of the official ideology really should be killed.
anne coulter's hateful polemics is merely the opening salvo...

other signs of the proto-fascist mindset can be discerned by the diseased musings of the self-important rightwing radio personalities.
witness recent calls to suppress the fourth estate, particularly the nytimes , for 'treason' by their publication of the bush regime's misdeeds, clumsily blanketed under the now all pervasive rubric of 'national security'.
other signs? the deification of the state and particularly it's leader.
the irony of all this is that it has taken a 'conservative' president to give liberals second thoughts about their long adulation of executive power. bush's propensity for bluster, swagger and defiance in a yosemite sam sort of way has led to two countries believeing their survival depends on their acqusition of the most horrifying weapons in the inventory of warfare. as andrew bacevich writes, 'as long as congress is firmly in republican hands, executive responsibility will remain a theoretical proposition'.

tunde...

Great postings! Many are much too close to see what you're talking about, but you nailed it. They no longer care to view the world from the perspective of anyone not in lockstep agreement with their agenda. The rest of the world sees a superpower willing to wage pre-emptive war but not wanting other states to have weapons which might protect them from such a fate. As much as we decry Iran, Iraq and North Korea, which one has recently invaded another country and occupied it militarily? None of them, but the US has, hasn't it?

We talk peace but practice war. Which side of our mouth should other countries pay attention to?

"I believe you're splitting hairs when you say Bush isn't America. Technically, of course, he isn't"

Bush is NOT America, Oohrah. Two different entities. He may be the elected official, but he certainly ISN'T "the" country!!!

This is what drives me crazy about conservatives....they can't seperate the two. If you dislike Bush...you're anti-
American. That's bull as far as I'm concerned.

I strongly dislike Bush. But I vote for those who I feel would be best for our country, be it democrat or republican. We fly a flag in our yard every single day...not just on holidays. I have a strong love for my country despite the fact I don't agree with her leader.

"Our victory/defeat will serve as a referendum on whether Bush's party ought to be kept in power. So to that extent, I believe Bush and the war on terror/Iraq are closely linked."

So are you saying the importance of winning in Iraq, is so republicans stay in power? That pretty much says to me that the importance of victory is imperative to party, rather than country.

" they are willing to give some latitude & trust to our leaders to prosecute the war"

Not true for all. I so desperately want us to win, but have litte to no trust in this admnistration to accomplish that goal.

It is because I want us to win, because, I love our country, that I criticize our leaders...wanting change to better our chances of winning. All too often, those here at drudge call people like myself traitors, or anti-American because I criticize Bush. I take great offense to those comments. Personally, I believe the traitors, the anti-Americans are those who deep down, see the failures of this administration, inparticularly regarding this war....and still defend these decision makers because they are affilitated with their party, therefore, putting party before country.

" The Dems objective becomes clearer: persuade enough people Bush is hosing up Iraq"

The dems don't have to push that envelope, Oohrah...people see it all on their own!

What's worse, in your book, Oohrah:

A party using a circumstance, one that is true and accurate...we are not winning in Iraq yet....to show that a particular party should not be in power,...or....a party lying about and mocking the service of a United States Veteran to say that he shouldn't be in power?

my point is that your attempt at debating that democrat electoral success rests on harm to america's foreign policy/domestic goals is merely a manifestation of facile reasoning and exactly how the GOP dominated right wants to trivialise politics whilst they go about violating our constitutional rights.
what you have to understand is that democrat/republicans are two wings of same bird of prey (the state).

We will not recognize it as it rises. It will wear no black shirts here. It will probably have no marching songs. It will rise out of a congealing of a group of elements that exist here and that are the essential components of Fascism....

It will be at first decorous, humane, glowing with homely American sentiment. But a dictatorship cannot remain benevolent. To continue, it must become ruthless. When this stage is reached we shall see that appeal by radio, movies, and government-controlled newspapers to all the worst instincts and emotions of our people. The rough, the violent, the lawless men will come to the surface and into power. This is the terrifying prospect as we move along our present course.

John T. Flynn, American Mercury,
February 1941

"I believe most Americans view war as something necessary but as a last resort..."

They do. So where was George Bush when this bit of American cultural mind-set was handed out, behind a door?

"I believe most Americans look at war as something necessary but only as a last resort and for good reason. Once we're in war they want us to "win." "

There are no winners in a nuclear war.

"Persude enough people Bush is losing in Iraq...."

This sort of statement drives me nuts. What is Bush doing to convince us he's WINNING in Iraq?

The man refuses to set out metrics for progress in Iraq.

The closest he's come is congratulating himself for a series of elections, but then when things remain the same on the ground there's never anything more said.

And the number of festering political and military problems he just won't speak of in Iraq grows each month.

How many times has anyone in the Bush Administration even mentioned Iraqi militias, except to say they'll go away some day, somehow, but we're not quite sure what will get them gone?

"The rough, the violent, the lawless men will come to the surface and into power."

AH, My destiny has been revieled.

DOGMAN

So are you saying the importance of winning in Iraq, is so republicans stay in power? That pretty much says to me that the importance of victory is imperative to party, rather than country.
lisa, that is a very astute observation and is the relic of the WH's inability to convince a significant body of public opinion that the iraq war was a war of national survival either for political reasons, or economic reasons or moral reasons. the iraq war/WoT was as much an ideological/metaphorical battle to finally destroy opposition to the GOP political machinery, as it was about national security. how else the constant linkage of AQ announcements as being democrat 'talking points'?
as for iraq being bush's khaki election, the switfness (by boat of course) of saddam's defeat, the obstinancy in recognising the burgeoning iraqi-led insurgency, the utter lack of planning for a post war iraq-all point to iraq being a stage prop to buttress the military bone fides of someone who's military credentials were highly dubious to say the least. all those flight suits, secret midnight dashes to bagdhad, solemn pronouncements to politically mute military audiences, declarations of 'war-time' presidential authority, allusions to churchillian insight to the menace of militant islam. these are all with a very firm eye to history; along with the adminstration's penchant for re-classification of documents from their time in office.
but call me a cynic. perhaps republicans really have no hidden agendas.
where's my soma?

revieled = revealed

The rough and lawless can't spell too good I guess.

DOGMAN

"So are you saying the importance of winning in Iraq, is so republicans stay in power? That pretty much says to me that the importance of victory is imperative to party, rather than country."

That about sums it up nicely.

DOGMAN

If you notice that the Emperor has no clothes you will be accused of wanting the Emperor to be naked.
The right can't realistically defend the logic involved in invading and occupying Iraq, Bush's Dad did a pretty good job in his autobiography of explaining why it was a bad, very bad idea which would result in exactly the quagmire we have now. They say that libs don't want "victory" there but they can't define what "victory" even is. They want to just stay the course even as we watch Bush Sr's predictions come true and get worse each week. The decision to stop ignoring reality is not a wish for "defeat."
That is really the problem with the right, they see things in black and white, victory or defeat. Iraq will NEVER result in a "victory" in the sense that WWII did. It will continue to be a quagmire until we leave and the most powerful factions take over as in any other place. We can't artificially make some sort of peace between groups who have been opposed to each other for hundreds of years. That isn't wanting defeat it is recognizing the reality that some of us unpatriotic folks had the nerve to do when this invasion started.
The right isn't so much wrong as just dumb.

"I'm suggesting that, just as Clinton got credit or blame for our economy's health, Bush will get credit or blame for how America perceives we're doing in Iraq and the overall efforts against terrorism."

Agreed...for the most part.

I don't believe Iraq was started because of terrorism. If that were the case, we would have focused more on OBL and a couple of other countries. IMHO, Bush had a score to settle with Saddam. Period. I believe there is evidence that Bush talked about invading Iraq prior to 911. And of course, we've all heard the number of excuses from this administration for entering Iraq in the first place, so....enough said on that.

But I understand exactly what you're saying in the rest of your paragraph, and agree.

I think the fact that there are so many people in this country doubting the truthfulness of this administration, tying it to corruption and the fact that the republican lead government did nothing to investigate, will hurt the republican party. If I were a republican politician...I'd run as far away from Bush as possible. It may be the only way to save his/her job.

sorry oorah, but i disagree fundamentally with your initial premise that for the opposition to prosper, the enemy must win and ergo, the general public will not contenance such a proposal (america's 'defeat'). it is the incumbent party in power that chose to make 'victory' or 'defeat' in iraq a referendum on the president's legacy. hence the nickname, the 'war party'.
and it is a tribute to the ruling clique's propaganda that you would seriously ascribe patriotism (in defeat or victory terms) to one party over another. cheney and gw are more patriotic than murtha and kerry? by what definition?
unrealistic, obstinate, ill-informed, proto-fascists and ideologues are words that come to mind. you can guess to whom they would be directed at.

oorah, your sports analogy.....
lets say this coaching pair ran the second-rated team in the country.
did the assistant direct the head coach to employ particular tactics against the number one rated team in the country with the uncertainty of victory or defeat? why did'nt the head coach use the weapons in his team, knowing what works? did the assistant have any input in formulating the strategy? if he did'nt how can the defeat or victory be the assistant's fault? in defeat, you can see the assistant, who becomes head coach as a result's press conference; 'i would'nt have done it like that...'

Oohrah:

You forgot an option:

Why can't both coaches work together, not stabbing the other in the back, putting the team (country) as top priority,therefore, the team wins, rather than the individual?

BTW: Seems to me Clinton accomplished a lot more with a republican lead senate and house than Bush has with a fully lead republican government.

Both sides worked together rather well there for quite awhile.

Oooorah, your analogy would be fine if the future of the country was not at stake. If Americans weren't dying in Iraq. As cynical as most of us think politicians are I really don't think that some of the Democrats are that shallow. I may be naive though I don't think so, but I do believe some who have been against this invasion and occupation, and who have been called unpatriotic etc. for it are that cynical. I remember William Fullbright who came out against the Vietnam War early, very early and was despised by millions of Americans for it until they realized he was right all along. He was not a cynical politician and I don't think that Dennis Kucinich is either, or Russ Feingold, or some others. Hillary Clinton I haven't totally made up my mind about.

China's the only country that can really talk to Lil' Kim.

China needs to wack their little dog accross the nose with a newspaper.

"Doesn't make for good theater!!"

So the action is more important than the good and well being of our country??

Come on, my friend, if it happened before, it can happen again.

Perhaps what we need to do is out all who hold office now, and start all over with true team players then. Whatcha think??!!

But Ooorah, then why do the Republicans prevent any real investigations into the reasons why we invaded, do they not want the truth????
Seems to me the Dems are only demanding to know the truth and for the American people to know the truth. Notice it is the righties who want to silence the news media. Hmmmmm....what other nations have allowed their news media to be silenced or censored....is that what the right wants for America????

It might have been the shorter-range No-Dong -- or, as it's more familiarly known to Koreans, the "Rush Limbaugh"

Posted by Mista Kurtz at 2006-07-04 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag

LOL.

It's amusing to think that the North Koreans might have their own techniques of demonization. They may have another missile named Ding Dong after Bush.

"I don't think the framers intended for lifetime politicians at all, do you?"

lol..no I don't!

Thanks for the nice discussion, Oohrah! It's refreshing around these parts of blog world!

"China needs to wack their little dog accross the nose with a newspaper."

YEAH! Umm, where does it say that a country can't fire missiles?

List treaty/document names where this is stipulated.

" And this isn't limited to Dems."

I'm glad you added that!

I've seen dirty crap thrown from both sides and disagree with it who ever it is that does it.

It's amusing to think that the North Koreans might have their own techniques of demonization. They may have another missile named Ding Dong after Bush.

Would this be the missile that started out all strong and manly, with intercontinental ambitions, yet had to be self-destructed when it wandered off-course? Sounds strangely appropriate, doesn't it?

The "strong and manly" missile sure does sound appropriate, TR. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

oorah,
i hear ya.

lisa at 12.29
there's was an interesting piece that speculated on a gore victory in 2000. the author argued that a republican house and senate would have made gore's response to 9/11 the equal of gw's (as far as the 'ghan was concerned); and that an opposing house would have checked all the worst excesses of a gore presidency. he would have bungled too, no doubt, but differently and less disasterously. it's very doubtful that a republican congress would allow for any great ME democratization project, let alone an iraq invasion. the difference in temperament and a slight republican majority would have hedged gore in.

**North Korea Tests Long-Range Missile**

.........just ignore the wacko.........what is he going to do if we ignore him ?......attack the U.S.?.....get serious........let Japan, China, South Korea and other neighbours talk to the dummy..........we dont have to save the entire world every day..... he's just angling to get cash from us anyways.............

Oohrah:

lol...yes, I guess I would expect you to say that. It would have been a suprise if you hadn't. I will say this though...I was thoroughly disgusted when republicans went after a veteran the way they did...especially, when their candidate has yet another shadow of suspicion on his own military record.

Tunde:

I try not to get into those discussions, the "if Gore would have been in office, he would have...". Speculating like that is a waste of time when there are so many more concrete issues that we all can argue about! : )

lol

Oohrah:

HUH??

I was speaking about the Swiftboaters, and the republicans wearing puprle bandaids during their convention.

Voting records, IMHO should be discussed and is one thing. Trashing a veterans heoric service, is another.

"The inference is the guy wasn't supporting the military thru his votes..."

Ah, the quintenssial lie told by the GOP.

Truth, such as this:

On April 21, 2005, 17 Republicans joined Senate Democrats in passing S. Amdt. 520 to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of 2005 (H.R.1268), by a vote of 61-39. The amendment, introduced by Senator Bayh and co-sponsored by Senators Kennedy, Cantwell, and Bill Nelson, provides an additional $213 million for Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles for the Armed Forces.

quintenssial should be quintessential

""quintenssial should be quintessential"

I just typed puprle instead of purple.

It happens.

"Were there other goodies attached?"

Oohrah, that is very disingenuous to ask that in the exact same post where you reference Kerry's "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" comment.

Hans

Part of that last post deserves repeating:

The Chairman's attitude mirrors the attitude of this Congress; it is one of total disrespect for veterans and it must not stand. The most recent example of this disturbing trend is the changes enacted to the long standing rules that allowed our VSOs to testify before Congress on issues relating to veterans. Republican or Democrat, we should all be appalled by the thought that our veteran leadership is being marginalized when it comes to the most critical issues facing our soldiers and veterans.

talking about any "politician" as if he were really a "public servant" is madness

thee are no "dems", no repubs"....no elections

we are NOT citizens

this is NOT a free nation

NOW THAT WE GOT THAT STRAIGHT
WE MAYBE CAN TALK AWHILE

--------

SAY. what da ya think about wtc7 & how they convinced ya it ....for some reason other than being demolished..."fell?"

did ya like ta be brain-washed?

did it get ya mad?

are ya still babbling SOUND BYTE DENIALS!

are you all really docile slaves?

"""The Korea Times is mainstream, legit as they come. I wonder why Bush says they aren't a threat when they have already attacked us?"""

Come on.....we've been telling you this for a long time now.....it is time to smell the coffee.....there is no oil in N. Korea...........Duh!

Firing off THREE missles sure sounds like a bit more than just a "test flight" -- it sounds like an attack.


Naw, it sounded like a well timed political statement... showing in part, it had the ability to fire coordinated multiple missiles as in a multiple missile attack. Much more significant than a single launch.

Good that the 3 stage failed...but its only a matter of time. Wonder if its' possible that he will run his country in the ground trying to be a big time player, much like the soviet system collapsed cuz it just didn't have the assets to stay in the card game?

Ya know who had the worst day this weekend, don't ya? The chief engineer of the multi stage missile! Bet the NIC (nutcase in charge) was not happy. Dont suppose he's as dumb as Saddam's sons, and kill him for failing a test? Sigh. Probably not.

WE need to take that guy out before he hurts somebody.

"DO You honestly think they would have done this if it weren't for the Madman that WE have in the WhiteHouse attacking countries that never attacked the United States. It's self defense Baby used to it.

Larry"

-0-

I agree with you Larry. One of the unintended consequences of King George II's little unprovoked attack on Iraq is that it has made the entire world nervous...and realize that the US can't be counted on to respect sovereignty. Course we do have a history of distrespecting that. But Bush II's attack was pretty blatant...to hit Iraq which hadn't particularly misbehaved lately.

What did that accomplish that wasn't intended? It made every nation in the world learn to distrust our power, and has in fact, restarted the COLD war. Bush's attack on Iraq probably did more to get every tin horn nation on the planet to go nuclear than anything else we could have done.

if you were a foreign country, would YOU trust the US? Who WOULDN"T want a nuclear bomb or two ready to fire off at the first sign of Marines staging nearby?

That's the fastest way to get an American president to cool his jets before sending off the Marines to depose you!

This is just reason 148 to NOT vote for Republicans, who in fact, are not fit to govern. How many times do we need to be convinced they are not operating in our best interest? If youre name's not Rockefeller, you should NOT vote for the capitalists!