Posted on 10/13/2006 8:07:46 AM PDT by silentknight
while validly pointing out all the different powers that be in this country that are influential and heavily left leaning, the bottom line is President Bush has the ultimate say as his fingers are on all the controls that count
Sad joke at a sad organization.
"I don't think China is afraid of too much...NK is their lapdog and"
But their lapdog's populations has been starving since 1950s. Of course, the Chinese soldiers could shoot the refugees on site while crossing the border. No cable news out there.
The spineless UN has once again dumped the problem into our lap.
a) failure to clean-out the CIA after 9/11;
b) failure to go after the leakers starting in 2004;
c) failure to go after the press working with the leakers;
d) failure to go after the press hiring terrorists as stringers;
e) failure to go after domestic traitors like Code Pink;
f) failure to use the force necessary to crush the Baath and al Sadr and to restore order in Iraq;
g) failure to beef up ground forces for an extended occupation;
h) failure to kick the Dems in the nuts and to focus the national spotlight on their collusion with leftist cockroaches;
i) failure to enforce immigration control;
j) failure to recruit good conservative candidates for the GOP and supporting RINO's and any sleazebag member of the swinger's Club Incumbent.
k) failure to control spending;
Every single one of these failures led to a press filled with enemy and Dem propaganda, a heartened enemy abroad and a depressed base at home.
The Dems and our foreign enemies can smell the weakness now oozing out of the Bush Administration.
OK, then I say we lay an import tarrif / withhold aid with any country that supplies arms to NK, and then expects to trade with us.
One can only hope GW takes no prisoners after the fall elections, clean the rats out of all levels, arrest them for treason if the law stipulates that is what the leakers are doing.
See # 68.
If China wanted to change things in NK, it could do so in a second.
You know the CIA hasn't been cleaned out?
I would guess Negroponte is a start.
So is the fact that the CIA failed to anticipate the NK bomb test.
We are paying $20 billion a year so a bunch of liberals can read foreign newspapers and then call that 'intelligence'. It's not suprising our NIE's sound like the International Herald Tribune.
We have no effective human intel programs as far as I can see against any of our most recent or current enemies: Iraq, Iran, NK, so what 'intel' are the CIA analysts actually analyzing?
I've been here right along. I've also, as you have, been observing the total disconnect between the Condi stated foreign policy aims and the actual foreign policy results. Of course the best glaring example was during the Israel-Hizbolla affair where she so publicly demanded that the only cease-fire that should come about was one that did not leave everything at the "status quo ante"; and the actual cease fire did exactly that and worse in terms of Hizbolla.
Notice how the Bush doctrine on both Korea and Iran has gone from ther understanding that neither of those countries should have nukes, to now saying they simply should not be allowed to trade or share their nukes.
The DOD could have eliminated the Mahdi (Shia) army in Iraq, organized, controlled, supplied and funded by Iran a long time ago (as Rummy has wanted to do), and since they are a major source of the sectarian violence from Shia to Sunnis, they are a major source of continued instability in Iraq (which is Iran's aim to begin with). But Condi and Burns have blocked those efforts. Now, if the Shia get a truly autonomous region under the "federalism" bill pushed through in Iraq, the Shia region will be under the full control of Tehran as an indentured client. Thank you Condi.
(Oh, and we know the locations in Iran where the IEDs used in Iraq are produced, but we cannot attack them. Thanks again Rice and Burns)
Prior to the 2004 elections, Bush had a robust foreign policy and his stated goals and aims were pushed and proded, with lackluster enthusiasm, by the State Department under Colin Powell.
We were led to believe that Condi was appointed due to her loyalty to Bush. Then, when conservatives' attention was directed elsewhere, she named and received confirmation on the appointment of Nicholas Burns as her Deputy Undersecretary for Political Affairs. He last previous role prior to that had been as the lead foreign policy advisor to the POTUS campaign of John Kerry; and it one of Condi's mentors, the RINO Chuck Hagel that made the suggestion to Condi.
If you want to read the framework of the course of our foreign policy after that point - talk and retreat, talk and retreat, talk and retreat - you only need to read the foreign policy white papers put out by the Kerry team in the runup to the election. Burns was a chief architect of them and they pretty much define how he and Condi have pursued our "diplomacy" since then.
I would love to be wrong, nothing would make me happier. Unfortunately, I am not. We will be directly attacked, and worse than 911, before any of the developing means for those attacks are ever dealt with. We will retreat into the false peace of international agreements that mask that reality for a time, until our sleep is awakend again. Our grandchildren will disown us.
All of the politically damaging crap that came out in 2004 was a clue.
Negroponte was appointed in 2005. As I said, I would guess Negroponte is a start.
So is the fact that the CIA failed to anticipate the NK bomb test.
You don't have a clue.
I know, but what about keeping a Republican in office?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.