That's almost as draconian a position as what the left preaches:

The President is always wrong.

Well-I'd say the prez'nit is always right-TO the right of ANYONE in the room.......

And yes zulu-duh-bai-yuh hasn't been RIGHT about anything since the supreme whores first "appointed" him in 2000.

Heck no (not that I'm a lefty), but I would say the president is mostly wrong.

Yep, zulu, questioning the President and following the President unquestionablly are exactly the same. Hey, just for fun, guess which one of those America was founded on. Have a guess? Unquestionably following the federal government or be accused of hating America? I thought you'd choose that.

Good luck with that whole complete trust in government thing.

Complete trust in the government is fine, as long as it isn't the Dems in power! Then all the power grabs could and should be used for their own nefarious plots.

Then we can have a little Nelson "ha ha"

zulu,

What do you think Clinton was right about?

Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War to get rid of a King George who thought he was always right?
And above the law?

in the end, everything means nothing however.

Its hard to imagine that the transcript ends there and the meeting is adjourned... its extremely hard to believe that Leahy didn't have a smartassed remark to retort with. Yet I can only find the above transcript where it stops after the climactic statement. From what I've seen of press and blogs when it comes to statements made by anyone, they rarely tell the whole story. If someone could find the whole thing that would be helpful... I even went the the House site but all they so far is Bradbury's openning statement.

Rob_The_A_Hole says: "...he was being pressed hard by that douchebag Leahy and tripped up and said something stupid."

Let's hear it for personal responsiblity! Another trait that Republicans only call on others to have.

Wow, I didn't know we could blame our answers on people... I mean "douchebags"... that ask us to answer questions. That's quite liberating, isn't it?

We take you know to a Republican 6 year old's kitchen:

Mom: Did you eat the cookies?
Kid: No!
Mom: Did you eat the cookies?
Kid: No!
Mom: Did you eat the cookies?
Kid: Yes, ok, I ate the cookies!
Mom: Go to your room!
Kid: You can't blame me! You are the douchebag asking the questions!

Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department lawyer, "was being pressed hard by that douchebag Leahy and tripped up and said something stupid."

Aw, po widdle JD lawyer assulted like that by mean ol', vicious ol' Senator Patrick Leahy. That monster!

The JD lawyer was just parroting the 23 percenter response REQUIRED by this White House.

This President IS always right. The law be damned.

Sassy that is not what I was saying, first Leahy is a douchebag whether he is grilling witnesses or sleeping, so that is how I describe him. Second I said it was a stupid thing to say and he was stupid for saying it. It is not unreasonable to think that someone being grilled by a United States Senator, in front of cameras and reporters with your every word being recored for all American history might say something stupid... I'm sure if you asked this guy in a different setting, "Do you think Bush is always right?" he would answer "no," because nobody thinks this. To anything along these lines is assinine.

Nice Mom vs. Kid convo though... it had no relevence but it was nice...

Mom: Did you eat the cookies?
Kid: No!
Mom: Did you eat the cookies?
Kid: No!
Mom: Did you eat the cookies?
Kid: Yes, ok, I ate the cookies!
Mom: Go to your room!
Kid: You can't blame me! You are the douchebag asking the questions!

Posted by Sassy at 2006-07-14 12:27 AM | Reply


I shudder at the very thought of the Punishment would be if I had said that to my Mother or even My Grandmother. Boy My Grandmother would have used a number 12 cast iron skillet across my head if I did that LMAO

Larry

Now I know how you guys feel everytime a Republican brings up the "Global Test" permission slip comment that Kerry made, during one of the debates.

Would any of you like to talk rationally now about how high pressure situations can allow you to slip into saying something silly? Or should we all go looking for comments about when people from our respective sides of the aisle fucked up and said something stupid? what fun that would be.

I guess everyone went to bed... or I scared them off... oh well I will do likewise and check in in the morning... somehow I have the feeling that this is going to be a brutal thread.

i could care less if the president is always right or seldom wrong as long as he took responsibility for his actions.
we're all wrong once in awhile.
honesty is a huge plus.

the sad thing is i get the impression that, even though i ask so little, i seldom get what it is i've asked for.

and the article linked tells a very sad tale.

Mission accomplished!
He can run but he can't hide.
We will be greeted as liberators
Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction
You're doing a great job Brownie
etc etc etc.

The president is rarely right about anything crucial.

"The president is always right..."

As if this wasn't the way Bush behaved and the way his followers behaved as if they wanted him to behave.

The Supreme Court needs to kick him again.

Yeah, That's it Asshole Rob.

You scared everyone off. It's not like they have jobs.

I'm still trying to figure out who believes more of his own bullshit.

You or 101 Chairpoodle.

Will the President still always be right when Hellary becomes President?

It'll be fun watching the roles reverse, Repubs will suddenly become concerned about civil rights, and Dems will talk about patriotism and not disrespecting the Prez.

WOW ~ what a blunder. I wonder what happened after all the eyebrows came back down?

Yep, zulu, questioning the President and following the President unquestionablly are exactly the same. Hey, just for fun, guess which one of those America was founded on. Have a guess? Unquestionably following the federal government or be accused of hating America? I thought you'd choose that.

Good luck with that whole complete trust in government thing.

Posted by Sassy at 2006-07-13 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag


oh please what a cockeyed answer to this comment......if you cant understand what he was saying, try a little easier subject next time......
of course your post about talking shit to your mother wasnt any great shake either, but I do agree with larry...OUCH!!!!
my old man would have kicked my ass and then took my name......wha????

I used to tell my students that I was always right....because I was...........

George Bush is perfect or so he believes. Therefore George Bush must be god.

Remember bush cannot tell you when he has ever made a mistake or an error.

The closest he has ever come to admitting a mistake was when he says he regretted other people misunderstood what he said.

"The president," Bradbury said, "is always right."

What utter horse shit.

Reminds me of a politician in a Firesign Theater skit:
"I never lie and I'm always right."

BullshitPeddler2:
" I used to tell my students that I was always right....because I was....."

No wonder education is a failure.

In grade school, the nuns would hammer us that only God was perfect, and that we were of course imperfect.

But that was way before George Bush, so I'm sure they've revised their thinking.

data......my middle school students were able to recognise satire....too bad you arent that sharp........


but to be fair....it was also in the context of what I was doing.....I was a conductor ( and no, I didnt have to stand in water...get it...conductor in water.....)
and when I said I was always right....I meant that if I changed to a different style or something that everybody should go with me and not stay where they were......

of course that never came up since I WAS ALWAYS RIGHT>..........LOL

I worked for a company once where the management was convinced they always made the right decisions and were always right.

If this Bradbury character is of that same thinking then he is simply goose stepping to the 'Yes Man' mantra.

07/14/06 AP: US Iraq War Costs May Rise By $406 billion by 2016
The Iraq war could cost U.S. taxpayers between $202 billion and $406 billion more over the next 10 years, depending on how quickly U.S. force levels can be reduced, congressional budget experts said on Thursday.


this is a vast vast vast underestimate.

Partylover:

Are you trying to say that the comment "the president is always right" was satire??

You've obviously been either asleep or drunk stupid since Bush took office if you believe that.

Either way...you are devoid of reality.

They showed some of the arguments before the SCOTUS on C-Span and the lawyer for the administration was out of his league. Not very good at all.

That he would say something as ridiculous as "The president is always right" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on Hamdan.

"data......my middle school students were able to recognise(sic) satire....too bad you arent(sic) that sharp........
"

Really?
I can spell words and contractions, too.

That he would say something as ridiculous as "The president is always right" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on Hamdan.

That he would say something as ridiculous as "Bring it On" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on Iraq.

That he would say something as ridiculous as "Wanted Dead or Alive" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on terror.

That he would say something as ridiculous as "The WMD are north, south, east and west of Baghdad" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on WMD.


Hey this is fun`

That he would say something as ridiculous as "Slam Dunk" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on Intelligence.

That he would say something as ridiculous as "Brownie, your doint a heck of a job" should be enouhg to tell you how badly represented the government was on Disaster Response.

"I worked for a company once where the management was convinced they always made the right decisions and were always right."

Are they still in business?

yep you might know em, Halliburton, er I mean the BUsh White House

okay okay....data......you got me on that one......pret...tttty good......


and god damm it lisa.....cant you read anything without twisting it and turning it into some shit.......go back now and read the exchange between me and data again and this time do it....

sssssss llllllll ooooooooo wwwwwwww llllllllll yyyyyyyyy


thats slowwwwwwwwwwwwwly.....and you will see that my call for satire was from what I SAID...........wake up for once......

I don't have to twist and turn anything that comes from your posts.

I've read enough of them to know that you try to pass off things as dumb jokes, but there is a lot of your true belief's in them.

Truthhurts:

Excellent posts!

thank you! :OI)

"That's almost as draconian a position as what the left preaches:

The President is always wrong."

Well he's not ALWAYS wrong. But if you had to live under either the assumption that he's always right or the assumption that he's always wrong - you'd be much better assuming he's always wrong. The man is a walking disaster who has fucked over the American people royally - especially those who were killed in his needless war in Iraq that he didn't even bother to plan.

Are they still in business?

Posted by DATA at 2006-07-14 09:05 AM


Whether are not they survive in business does not mean they always make the right decision.

Their business policies and practices are very similar to our current administation.

Our current administration is 'still in business' and I hardly think they make any right decisions.

Liberal scientists believe there are numerous parallel universes, so, if Bradbury had added "in some universe" he'd have probably correct. It's the old million monkeys typing. If you have enough universes where Bush is President, you'd get some where he was occassionally right and thoeretically one where he was always right.
Unfortunately, in our universe, he's neither.
But I bet he enjoyed the German pig.
And dinner too.

And do I see a future seat on SCOTUS for a certain Mr. Bradbury? He sucks up as well as Harriet, and probably more about law.

Rob,
Tell me that you had a brain cramp when you typed this:
To quote a great man... Mr Leahy you can "go fuck yourself."
Or at least maybe you were overtired? Didn't get your afternoon nap?
If not, name one thing that makes shooter "great".

"If not, name one thing that makes shooter "great"."

Well, there's his ability to shoot a man in the face, avoiding the authorities till all traces of alcohol have left his body,claiming he only had "one"...convincingly enough that many believed him.

He's great at coverups.

"07/14/06 AP: US Iraq War Costs May Rise By $406 billion by 2016"

WOW!! Our successes in Iraq are so spectacular we'll only be fighting there 10 years more years!

A quick and painless Iraq War that will be paid for by Iraqi oil.
Just another thing King George was right about.

Lisa,
I knew there was something I had missed...thanks!

"Humane treatment of insurgent captives should extend far beyond compliance with Article 3, if for no other reason than to render them more susceptible to interrogation. The insurgent is trained to expect brutal treatment upon capture. If, contrary to what he has been led to believe, this mistreatment is not forthcoming, he is apt to become psychologically softened for interrogation. Furthermore, brutality by either capturing troops or friendly interrogators will reduce defections and serve as grist for the insurgent's propaganda mill," - from the Army Field Manual 34-52. (My italics.)

This may help belie the notion fostered by some that the U.S. has never abided by Article 3 with respect to combatants out of uniform. As Marty Lederman shows, it did for 53 years before the Bush years. Notice how good intelligence, according to the U.S. military, is not procured by brutality but by legal and humane psychological pressure. Notice that the Army doesn't see anything "vague" about these standards, as some of the new authoritarians argue. Notice that the U.S. Army has historically believed Article 3 to be a minimum of decency - and requires beefing up by Americans, not watering down. Notice also that this has always applied to enemies out of uniform, insurgents, guerrillas, including, for example, the Viet Cong.

Caesar was always right, too! The Senate didn't always agree, but the succeeding emperors usually got their way -- but not always.

lisa.....

a study has said that there is a certain amount of feces in water that we drink from the tap and that over a long period of time we drink about 1 % of a liter of feces......I think you got more than your share because you are full of shit......


thank you.....

Bushlover, You are a teacher?
Boy, talk about the dumbing down of America.....

and thank you jeff for once again coming through with biased and prejudicial remarks coming straight out of your ass....

to put it in a more simple way.....you have no idea of what you are talking about....but thats okay......because you have no way of knowing how good I was.....
so I forgive you........


now doesnt that feel better.......

oh before I go.......


PZZXXXTTT......thats the texas version of a bronx cheer...


have a good one anyway

as lunch today will start us on our margaritas a little early.........

This is another of those offhand quotes taken out of context and blown up to mythical proportions by the Left. Remember that quote from Cheney, you go to war with the Army you have, not with the Army you want?--then he went on to say that they were speeding up deliveries of armored Humvees to Iraq, getting cheers from the troops he was speaking to? Or do you remember when Cheney used a loophole in the Katrina law to give millions extra to charity, but didn't send it to Katrina relief--but to other charities instead, and the libs beat him up for his disingenuousness and greed.

But the Libs only cut-and-pasted what they want to hear. Typical. And funny. A low-level staffer I've never heard of before today, testifying to a nobody commission and being questioned by a blowhard Senator who is a member of the minority party. Two more insignificant people in Washington today are harder to imagine, yet their discussion makes the front page of the Drudge Retort.

"Remember that quote from Cheney, you go to war with the Army you have, not with the Army you want?"

No

Try Rummy

oh and jeff......maybe you are right...maybe I did cause them all to be stuck dumb....I mean teenagers can do some wierd shit at times......

lets start with the group of 60 who were with me on a tour of eruope in the summer of 01...damn...was that good timing....
the ones who performed under me....no jokes here pleasr.....in munich and salzberg in the garden and the old castle on the mountain....and the ones who were with me in lake lucerne when we had to play three encores...
or we can always go with the kids who were on stage with me the night of april 2, 1998....I mean come on...how could they get to CARNEGIE HALL....with stupid ole me as thier teacher.......

nice try though.....

and now ...off for real..........


have a great weekend everyone....I mean it.....I hope to spread my joy and cheer to everyone regardless of their political persuassion or religion.....well except for those pesky methodists.....hee hee

is bush methodist?

"and the ones who were with me in lake lucerne "

Did they drown?

If not, name one thing that makes shooter "great".

Posted by evilpolock at


Wasn't he seceratary of defense during Operation Desert Storm? That's 1.

Was anyone able to find a transcript that went longer than the one I posted last night? I can't believe that it ended there, and the fact that every single transcript stops right there tells me that there was probably some clarification that immediately followed. I've been wrong before though so if someone has a transcript that would be wonderful. Its just that my experience with these "Gotcha" lines has been that the speaker rarely means what came out. I used the example of John Kerry's "Global Test."

Or are you liberals saying that Kerry would have asked for permission to defend America if he were President... it is what he said.

Bush is not always wrong. But the times he is wrong, he really screws us over royally. I have not seen a president who is this actively destructive towards our country in my lifetime and I remember Carter. I haven't even read of a president who was this proactively destructive.

Kerry wouldn't have left oil prize Iraq any quicker...that's for sure...& Liebermann would be his no. 1 democrat ally, too, with Edward's fluming on the side:>)

data.....thats funny....I mean it...I am still laughing out loud.........

guess it should have read AT lake lucerne.......


and here is a tip for some of you beer drinkers.....today in the 7th race at monmouth park in jersey is my pick///


chugmorebud......how can he miss??????/

Rob:
If not, name one thing that makes shooter "great".

Posted by evilpolock at


Wasn't he seceratary of defense during Operation Desert Storm? That's 1.

And his keen insight back then as to what would happen if we invaded Iraq can't be overlooked:
Here's Cheney in 1991, parroting the elder Bush's (POTUS #41) reasoning for not going into Baghdad. Crooks & Liars has provided a link to the audio here (QuickTime audio). See transcript, below:

"The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad, and uh, somehow take control of the country strikes me as, as, and extremely, uh, serious one, in terms of what we'd have to do when we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be --how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily, in determining the outcome of, uh, the struggle over whose going to govern in Iraq, strikes me as the classic definition of a QUAGMIRE."

A transcript of the 1992 appearance was tracked down by P-I columnist Joel Connelly, as reported in today's In the Northwest column.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

he's always right
except when he's wrong
and he's always wrong
it's the same old song

Wow, northhack, that's a wonderful post. What does that have to do with the original question or reply? Oh, nothing? Wow, I'm totally not shocked.

i cant say bush is always wrong... i like his "dont call list" for telemarketers...that was long overdue.
its everything he has done since then that is wrong
righties....tell me again why harriet myers was the best choice for the supreme court...i need a laugh this morning

don't call list was very good...Bush's very highest point in his incredible amazing loving career...he reminds me so much of Gandhi in his compassion for the poor & Iraqis in particular!:>)

Bani,

It is so Insanely Funny and true.

-Sarge

"""Or are you liberals saying that Kerry would have asked for permission to defend America if he were President... it is what he said."""

Oh, you mean cooperate with the UN like Dubya now thinks is the best way to deal with N. Korea????
I guess even morons like Bush can learn from experience that unilateral invasions cost hundreds of billions which we don't get to share, that primarily American soldiers are the targets, and that in the end was a big mistake anyway. Iran is still celebrating Dubya's invasion of Iranq.

"lisa.....

a study has said that there is a certain amount of feces in water that we drink from the tap and that over a long period of time we drink about 1 % of a liter of feces......I think you got more than your share because you are full of shit......


thank you"

LOL

That's the best you have to come back with??

You are so weak.

Enlighten us, oh partisan one...and offer proof, that what I said isn't true.

Common sense would tell you that there is a greater chance I am right...than wrong.

Oh wait...you have no common sense. I guess there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Sucks to be you.

Oh, you mean cooperate with the UN like Dubya now thinks is the best way to deal with N. Korea????


Sorry Danni, that's not going to work now. Go back and review the '04 debates. George Bush always favored multi party talks with N. Korea sweetheart, that's a fact. It was John Kerry criticizing Bush for not engaging in unilateral talks with North Korea. Maybe there is a bathroom that needs cleaning or beanpie that needs baking... you seem to be out of your league here.

"George Bush always favored multi-party talks with North Korea...."

Bush's BEHAVIOR, as opposed to anything he may have said, was to deal with the North Koreans not at all for---Gee, I've forgotten how many years.

Wrong Zed, he's always wanted the multilateral talks. To do anything with the US alone would be to give in to them. Liberals seem to like it when America loses, but I personally don't, so I am proud of how he as acted. It was the right course to take.

BEHAVIOR, Rob, BEHAVIOR.

Yes Zed, his BEHAVIOR was to not deal with them alone, but to show them it is not just America that will not tolerate a Nuclear North Korea but all nations. North Korea made out pretty well last time there were one on one talks and they didn't want that to happen again.

BTW I don't blame Clinton, I blame Carter, he orchestrated those talks and he talked Clinton out of much harsher methods.

His behavior was not to deal.

Yes Zed, and it was the right move. Clinton dealt one on one, what did that accomplish?

"What did it accomplish...?"

Hmmmm. Up to twenty-one fewer North Korean nukes by 2008?

You're right zed, they didn't even start working on Nukes until February 2001. They weren't doing anything that violated their agreement with America in the 1990s... Fucking retarded liberals... You're hatred blinds you... you are not even worth talking to

Fucking retarded liberals... You're hatred blinds you... you are not even worth talking to

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole
_____________________________

amid the hyenas & their fascist responses
........a small stirring!

(is it a child somewhere who wants to live?)

or a man determined that self respect
is worthy of his ....death?

Rob, in a large sense you are completely right---

The NKs didn't pick up work on nukes in a significant way until well after Bush was president.

Now, as far as can be told, they are attempting to mass produce them. That could have begun almost ten years earlier. Why did it not?

It's not hatred when you adhere to the facts.

br />

fascistic apologia!

amid the crying children
(but they will not become enslaved!)

dream on....!
ye useless & demented OLD PEOPLE!

tuned in so !
to the PROPAGANDA MACHINE!

how ugly---your sheeplike compliance!
your fear of DEATH!
your lack of BRAVERY!

AS THE STRUTTING HYENAs TAKE YOUR STREETS!

but oh how nicely you speak
never saying anything .."mean"

"Fucking retarded liberals... You're hatred blinds you... you are not even worth talking to"

Does that mean you are leaving? Good bye.

It was a success Clinton avoided war with North Korea; it will be a success if Bush avoids war with North Korea.

I sincerely think Bush's peculiar attitude towards North Korea for the first several years was the response of a man that fanatically avoided opening an atlas at school when a boy.

The point of the article centers on an old debate that is still (somewhat) up in the air: does the President need Congressional approval to prosecute prisoners through military tribunals?

Look at the SC's last ruling--they were all over the place to the point of confusion. The only reason a majority came together was to have an answer and not have to say, "um, we don't know...why don't you guys (5th Circuit) figure it out?" The biggest group in real agreement on the court was between three (3) justices.

The SC was against it when Lincoln did it--he ignored them and did it anyway. The SC was for it w/WWII Japanese. In any case, it's clear that the Prez's position weakens when he acts on this issue w/o Congressional approval.

People who think the president is always right are just as stupid as the people who think the president is always wrong.

At least it's out in the open: evidently the furhrerprincep trumps the Constitution.

The President is not always right, but he's right alot more than the Libs...and boy does that make them angry!

The NKs didn't pick up work on nukes in a significant way until well after Bush was president.

Wow... just wow. You can't even say that the North Koreans were researching, and working on a nuclear program durning the Clinton Administration, when clearly they were. I'm not even saying Clinton did the wrong thing, I think he did the right thing and that the North Koreans can't be trusted.

You and this Bradbury guy are like evil twins, he says the president can do no wrong while you blame him for everything from things that took place before his administration to high humidity.

That's almost as draconian a position as what the left preaches:

The President is always wrong.

Posted by zulu at 2006-07-13 11:34 PM

Not really. The left is always correct on that point, because the George Dubai *IS* always wrong. There is no doubt that he is the single most incompetent and corrupt leader this nation has ever had. Even the right wingers (at least those who aren't Kool-Aid drinkers) have to admit he is the worst president ever.

If nothing else Bush gained his reputation the old fashioned way: he earned it.

"You blame him (Bush) for everything...."

Not at all. I do think he's always been out of his depth, however. What do you think?

It was a success Clinton avoided war with North Korea; it will be a success if Bush avoids war with North Korea.

Posted by Zed at 2006-07-14 03:22 PM | Reply

Clinton did not avoid war with North Korea. Kim was on his last, puny leg and about to collapse. Grind to a complete halt.

I think Clinton knew this at first. He also knew that all that was needed was a good shove, and this last evil, xenophobic communist hellhole would cease.

The fact that Clinton allowed Carter to meddle in the situation and prop up the NorKors is truly tragic. Left alone, North Korea today would be the poor half of a single Korea, with Seoul as the capital.

Justsomeguy-

Though I don't agree with the claims in your retort, they didn't bother me. Just reading your comments overwhelmed me with feelings of pitty and sadness for you. After all, with such a low IQ and complete inability to think critically or reasonably, life must really be tough.

"Left alone, North Korea would be the poor half of a single Korea...."

So, you think the miniscule, and I do mean miniscule, items Clinton traded for a nuke production moratorium propped up Norht Korea?

Given China and South Korea's abject fear of North Korean collapse, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

"Clinton did not avoid war with North Korea..."

Was there a war? Did it happen during may nap?

This is an interesting discussion. Clinton had more traction with the NKs than anyone I can recall, yet the push to demonize his contribution is almost fanatical with some.

Look at George Bush. The man was figuring out how to shoot down a NK missile.

It was lucky for us all that that NK test failed.

If Bush had tried to intercept it and missed, which was very likely, his position in realtion to the Nks would have been eroded even further.

But if he had scored a hit, what anyone would consider an act of war, then what was he prepared to do next?

I mean, if you aren't prepared for any eventuality after that, then what does that say about you?

Another Korean War memorial to honor another 50,000 American dead. Just exactly what we need.

Um, Zed, exactly how is shooting down a missile aimed at Hawaii that lands in the Sea of Japan an act of war? Wouldn't shooting it off in the first place be? Isn't shooting a missile over Japan itself, as NK did last year, also an act of war?

Seems as if the regional powers have a higher threshhold for what constitutes an act of war than you do. Fortunately.

Zed--

NK is clearly not all Clinton's fault. The problem is the NK leader wants nuclear development no matter what.

Clinton did contribute. He gave the psycho significant technology to help him on his way.

Mind you, I think Clinton thought long and hard about it and did it in good faith. Regardless, it was a bad move. As a result, Clinton's decision should be remembered negatively. However, it shouldn't be our primary focus when considering the NK situation.

MORE IMPORTANT: Let's get to the real issue. What can be done about the current situation now?

"He gave the psycho significant technology to help him on his way."

By "on his way", I assume you mean technology to help him in his pursuit of nuclear weapons. What technology toward this end did Clinton give him?

RiR-
The missile was not aimed at Hawaii.

The missile was targeted to waters in the region near Hawaii, obviously an ominous message if it had been a success, but I'm a little tired of hearing that NK fired an ostensibly nuclear-tipped weapon at Hawaii.

Jonesy-
According to Bush, this member of the "Axis of Evil" run by a "pygmy" that he "loathes" should, now that the situatiuon has gone to hell in his bucket, be treated to his special brand of "diplomacy" which "takes time".

but I'm a little tired of hearing that NK fired an ostensibly nuclear-tipped weapon at Hawaii.

Posted by Boyd

* * * *

Who ever said that? NK fired a missile toward Hawaii, or "the waters in the vicinity of Hawaii". And they missed. Fortunately for them.

If NK ever used a nuclear weapon, it won't be put on some rocket that would more likely than not blow up on a pad. It'll be put in a wooden dinghy and floated down the river. Even they should be able to manage something that simple.

RiR-
Oh, it's "toward Hawaii" now. No longer "at" Hawaii, as in your post not half an hour ago?

"It'll be put in a wooden dinghy and floated down the river. Even they should be able to manage something that simple."

More likely it will be given to a third party.

The Clinton appeasement program (through Carter) for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and a nuclear reactor.

The agreement lacked even the most informal means of verification.

Before the Clinton-Carter catastrophe, NK did not have the technology to develop a nuclear reactor. If you believe NK hasn't used this technology toward their nuclear weapons program you are naive.

"Clinton's contribution should be remembered negatively..."

Hard to think how a NK moratorium on nuke production is negative.

You do know the NK's are perhaps making one nuke every three months now, don't you? In your opinion, is that negative?

"He gave the psycho significant technology to help him on his way..."

And, this was....?

"Before the Carter-Clinton catastrophe, NK did not have the technology to build a nuclear reactor..."

So, that 5MW graphite gas reactor the NKs had, that was akin to unicorns, in your estimation?

What do you think Clinton was trying to shut down in NK? Further, what was it that he did shut down?

the "child" is always right

he gazes into the faces of the
so-called men of the american scene
& a big "pile of shit" is all that is there

the "leaders", of course, wear proudly their "white underwear"
but the DEATH that they are....still stinks

as does their fascistic lust for....mere simplicity
as a protection for the.....fruits of pure greed

the CHILD is always right

there are NO MEN here

just a bunch of WEAK PEOPLE slobbering

over newspaper stories while watching tee vee

Clinton shut down nothing. What he was trying to do is irrelevant.

He got a dishonest dictator to "promise" to stop trying to make nukes. Should he be applauded for this?

NK did not have the technology to develop a nuclear reactor. If you believe NK hasn't used this technology toward their nuclear weapons program you are naive.

What kind of reactor were supposed to be given (I don't believe that project was ever completed ) and why?

(You seem completely unfamiliar with any of the relevant facts)

I believe it was a light water reactor? (Feel free to double check. And yes, the project was completed.)

Why it was given is the big question. I think the reasoning given was the same as for the $$$. USA is helping NK and its people and in exchange NK is going to stop trying to make nuclear bombs. Sounded great at the time--too bad it was based on one crazy guy's promise.

K Boyd, feel free to familiarize me if I'm wrong. I won't be insulted.

And why a light water reactor? If this is the "big question", then you really have some more research to do.

Read this, for starters. I'm sure you'll find much to offend in it, but at least it'll give you some understanding that goes beyond whatever you've been hearing from the echo chamber you seem to be trapped in.

Yes It Was A "Light Water" Reactor !!

Now We Will See If Some Are Informed Or Ill-Informed ?

I Say All The Time Listening to Rush And Sean Will Make You Ill-Informed !!!

-Sarge

Well Boyd, thanks for the info. The leftist tilt was barely amusing until it got to "Carter was an ideal choice." At that point it became gut busting!

So, I guess I was well informed after all. Clinton-Carter give a crazy guy hundreds of millions, 2 light water nuclear reactors (for electricity lol), a bunch of oil all for the guy's promise to not make nuclear weapons. Oh, I forgot to mention that they "locked" the facility holding the reactors.

Congratulations guys, you really prevented a catastrophe.

"Clinton shut down nothing..."

I again refer you to that 5MW graphite gas reactor.

"He got a dishonest dictator to promise to stop making nukes...."

Yes, Kim is dishonest. But yes, he stopped making nukes.

"He (Clinton) should be applauded for this...?"

You bet.

"Congratulations you guys, you really prevented a catastrophy...."

What was prevented was the eight to twelve nukes Kim subsequently built on Bush's watch, with perhaps a dozen more to come before his watch is over.

Zed--you have no idea if he stopped making nukes. NK, in a very limited way, was opened to inspectors. For all we know he was still going full throttle behind the scenes.

Clinton gave NK the necessary $$$ and technology to really get his nukes going.

The fact that you are really holding by that story, which portrays both NK dictators as reasonable and diplomatic, is laughable. That you try to toss the blame of NK taking the rods (which Clinton gave them) and using them to further nuclear weapons development on Bush because he "embarrased" the psycho is beyond stupid.

"Clinton gave NK the necessary $$$ and technology to really get his nukes going."

You keep saying this as if repeating it makes it true, so I'll ask again: What technology applicable to weapons production did Cinton "give" NK? (the light water reactors aren't suitable in any manner to weapons production, which is why they were proposed to be given).

taking the rods (which Clinton gave them)

Clinton did not give them the rods. They already had them as part of their nuclear reactor, which is why the light water reactors were promised as a substitute in exchange for locking up their ongoing program. Have you any reading comprehension whatever?

Did you not even read your own article? It even admits that the rods can be used for that purpose. Also, how do you think he got the other materials for nuke production? Answer: He bought them. With what money? hmm...let's think.

Now, to further analyze your source...

The entire article used as a basis for Bush's poor negotiating is backed only by people who have something to gain by making it look like Bush's fault. (Clinton's advisors and diplomats for example).

Yea, I'm sure it was Bush's fault. After all, Clinton's buddies said Rice's body language was questionable.

"Which portrays NK dictators as both reasonable and diplomatic...."

Well, if Kim is insane, then you better hell never attack him. Or maybe better hell, attack him, as because he's insane he'll get you anyway.

So, you tell me---I'm curious, really.

Oh, I know---Let's have six-party talks with Kim---Because he's insane. Looking glass, white rabbits, and Alice.

Boyd,

Never mind they have no idea of the application of Nuclear Energy nor the Concept Of Uranium Enrichment and Hell Bush can't even Pronounce The Damn Word.

-Sarge

Jonesy-
I'll try one more time. NK already had a reactor. The light-water reactor was never built.

Very well, Jonesy.

What has Bush done to help with the NK situation?

He's had six years, and in those six years NK has been making bombs.

Name one act by Bush that hasn't made the situation even more intractable.

"Pyongyang scrupulously observed these provisions until the Bush administration stopped the oil shipments in December 2002."

But Bush said it's Clinton'sFault(TM).

Sucks to be you.

Posted by Lisa at 200


so just think where this puts you because you're nuts.


I have read where the north koreans agreed not to do things at one site and didnt but were doing the same thing somewhere else not covered by the agreement.......and all during the clinton years.but thats not the fault of clinton is it? isnt that the fault of the little dog eater?

Though I don't agree with the claims in your retort, they didn't bother me. Just reading your comments overwhelmed me with feelings of pitty and sadness for you. After all, with such a low IQ and complete inability to think critically or reasonably, life must really be tough.

Posted by Jonesy at 2006-07-14 05:52 PM

Though I don't agree with the claims in your retort, they didn't bother me. Just reading your comments overwhelmed me with feelings of pitty (sic) and sadness for you. After all, with such a low IQ and complete inability to think critically or reasonably, and your inability to even spell simple four letter words, life must really be tough.

It's also got to be terrible going through life believing anybody cares about your opinion, then realizing not one single, solitary person in the entire universe does.

"Bill Clinton, a president not known for hawkishness, nearly went to war against North Korea in the spring of 1994. Five years earlier, during the presidency of George Bush's father, the CIA had discovered the North Koreans were building a reprocessing facility near their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. It was this reactor that, when finished, would allow them to convert the fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. Now, barely a year into Clinton's first term in office, they were preparing to remove the fuel rods from their storage site, expel the international weapons inspectors, and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which North Korea had signed in 1985).

In response, Clinton pushed the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. North Korea's spokesmen proclaimed that sanctions would trigger war. Clinton's generals drew up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea--bolstering the 37,000 that had been there for decades--as well as over 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and additional battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defense missiles. Beyond mere plans, Clinton ordered in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters that could manage this massive influx of firepower. These moves sent a signal to the North Koreans that the president was willing to go to war to keep the fuel rods under international control. And, several former officials insist, he would have. At the very least, they say, he was prepared to launch an air strike on the Yongbyon reactor, even though he knew that doing so could provoke war."

Hmmmmmmm What Has Bush Done Lately ?

-Sarge

RIR and Sarge,

Well, get this, you're both right. The NK did stoop on the agreement and process uranium at another facility not covered by the Clinton agreement. Technically this was not a breach -- just a tricky way of subverting the agreement.

Bush did breach our side of the agreement in 2002 with the disruption of aid and NK called the US on this and fell out of the agreement. They then proceeded to build nuclear weapons that continues to this day. Plus build up a missle system that can deliver a nuclear bomb on American Soil. You know "Nuclear Perliferation"

Oh, and lets not leave out Pakistan. THey supplied the technology to help NK develop nukes. Not to mention harbor Osama Bin Laden, support the teliban, and help out Iran. Some friends huh.

The problem is that Republicans cannot live up to their own rhetoric.

Bush destroyed a nation on suspicion of having WMD... but it didn't. But North Korea is BEYOND suspicion: we KNOW they have WMD.

Then, he tried to claim that it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator... but North Korea is being lead by a far worse dictator.

He also tried claiming that it was to 'spread Duhmockracy'... but amazingly North Korea is not a Democracy, either.

Iraq never attacked the United States, but North Korean missiles have been found in Alaska, and their most recent test long range missile test was aimed at Hawaii. Other test missiles from North Korea flew over Japan, our ally.

Poor lil Republifundies. They just can't accept the truth, that Bush attacked Iraq for a 'glorious little war', since he knew he would never capture his pal Osama. The Bush administration entered office knowing they would plunder Iraq, and that their requested "new Pearl Harbor" was on the way.

Modrat,
I agree and "Just" summed it very well.

-Sarge

FUNNY... WE are MORE committed to our WITHDRAW of IRAQ.....than to DISARMING IRAQ.... 12 YEARS to DISARM..... 4+ years to INAVDE and OVERTHROW

CM-
Is it just me, or did that not make any damned sense?

CM-
Is it just me, or did that not make any damned sense?

Posted by Boyd


LOL

YEA... IT TAKES 12 YEARS...RIGHT!!!!

invade...inade....

maybe Boyd thought you were talking about aids?:>)

BLT,
How can you be a musician and still be so anal retentive, and rightwing apoligistic?

You must play Pat Boone, elevator muzac, and so on...
You certainly don't have any real soul.

You BLT certainly don't have any real soul.

It's what happens when you spend your career training marching bands.

Look into my eyes
Tell me what you see
You don't see a damn thing
'cause you can't relate to me
You're blinded by our differences
My life makes no sense to you
I'm the persecuted one
You're the red, white and blue

Each day you wake in tranquility
No fears to cross your eyes
Each day I wake in gratitude
Thanking God He let me rise
You worry about your education
And the bills you have to pay
I worry about my vulnerable life
And if I'll survive another day
Your biggest fear is getting a ticket
As you cruise your Cadillac
My fear is that the tank that has just left
Will turn around and come back

Yet, do you know the truth of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth nobody, nobody, nobody knows
Has our world gone all blind?

Do you know the truth of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth nobody, nobody, nobody knows?
Someone tell me...

Ooohh, let's not cry tonight
I promise you one day it's through
Ohh my brothers, Ohh my sisters
Ooohh, shine a light for every soul that ain't with us no more
Ohh my brothers, Ohh my sisters

See I've known terror for quite some time
57 years so cruel
Terror breathes the air I breathe
It's the checkpoint on my way to school
Terror is the robbery of my land
And the torture of my mother
The imprisonment of my innocent father
The bullet in my baby brother
The bulldozers and the tanks
The gases and the guns
The bombs that fall outside my door
All due to your funds
You blame me for defending myself
Against the ways of my enemies
I'm terrorized in my own land (what)
And I'm the terrorist?

Yet, do you know the truth of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth nobody, nobody, nobody knows
Has our world gone all blind?

Do you know the truth of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth nobody, nobody, nobody knows?
Someone tell me...

Ooohh, let's not cry tonight, I promise you one day it's through
Ohh my brothers, Ohh my sisters,
Ooohh, shine a light for every soul that ain't with us no more
Ohh my brothers, Ohh my sisters,

America, do you realize that the taxes that you pay
Feed the forces that traumatize my every living day
So if I won't be here tomorrow
It's written in my fate
May the future bring a brighter day
The end of our wait

(pause)


Ooohh, let's not cry tonight, I promise you one day it's through
Ohh my brothers, Ohh my sisters,
Ooohh, shine a light for every soul that ain't with us no more
Ohh my brothers, Ohh my sisters,


Ohh let's not cry tonight I promise you one day is through
Ohh my brothers! Ohh my sisters!
Ooh shine a light for every soul that ain't with us no more
Ohh my brothers! Ohh my sisters!

Danish band, Outlandish.
The member of this band that wrote this song is Palestinian.