Skip to comments.
Bi-Lateral Talks with North Korea (Question)
9/30/04
| christie
Posted on 09/30/2004 7:29:48 PM PDT by christie
I'm confused. Why does Kerry stress a coalition for the war on terror and going to war with Iraq but thinks we should have bi-lateral talks with Korea.
Can someone explain this?
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: flipflop; korea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: christie
I thought the same thing. You and I can't be the only ones that are thinking that....whhoooo as I was typing Hannity nailed him with this very point.
21
posted on
09/30/2004 8:15:44 PM PDT
by
rewrite
To: christie
"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."
And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.
On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.
His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.
22
posted on
09/30/2004 8:19:06 PM PDT
by
Chummy
("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
To: christie
"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."
And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.
On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.
His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.
23
posted on
09/30/2004 8:19:35 PM PDT
by
Chummy
("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
To: christie
"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."
And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.
On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.
His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.
24
posted on
09/30/2004 8:21:14 PM PDT
by
Chummy
("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
To: Chummy
Sorry about the multi-posts; posting of my comment went berserk like TahRAYsah when she meets someone opposed to Mr. PreDebate Manicure.
25
posted on
09/30/2004 8:22:58 PM PDT
by
Chummy
("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
To: christie
The common denominator in Kerry's foreign policy is this: Whatever the other country wants, that's what we should do.
This was in evidence several times tonight, viz.
1. North Korea wants bilateral talks, so we should go it alone with North Korea.
2. The UN/France/Germany wants a veto on our middle east policy, so we should give them a veto.
3. Other nations wanted more goodies from us in the leadup to the Iraq invasion, so "we should have sat down with them and asked them, 'what else can we give you?'" (my best recollection of his actual quote).
4. Some other example I can't remember at the moment.
26
posted on
09/30/2004 8:23:36 PM PDT
by
AB AB AB
(Dan Rather: "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.")
To: jwpjr
Bilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il extorts America. Multilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il has to hold a gun to the heads of five countries. Kerry is Carter II.
To: christie
Jimmy had bi-lateral talks with Korea and it got him the Nobel Peace Prize.
28
posted on
09/30/2004 8:34:56 PM PDT
by
anton
To: matchwood; All
All the responses are great. We need to make an issue of this.
Coaliton in Iraq -- Unilateral in N. Korea.
Kerry is wrong on all issues.
Kerry has sold us down the river too many times.
29
posted on
09/30/2004 8:45:32 PM PDT
by
christie
(John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
To: christie
Wait, he will change his position tomorrow.
The RATS will advocate exactly opposite what Republicans are doing.
To: matchwood
Bilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il extorts America. Exactly correct.
They want the same deal they had with Clinton and Maddie, that won't fly with President Bush.
31
posted on
09/30/2004 9:06:58 PM PDT
by
RJL
To: christie
John McCain just said on MSNBC that to his knowledge NO American president has EVER agreed to bi-lateral talks with North Korea.
32
posted on
09/30/2004 9:07:53 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(What's the Font Spacing, Kenneth?)
To: Howlin
We need to make an issue out of N. Korea!!!
33
posted on
09/30/2004 9:19:08 PM PDT
by
christie
(John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
To: christie
34
posted on
09/30/2004 10:54:44 PM PDT
by
christie
(John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
To: christie
Only John Kerry casn explain it. No President has ever had bilateral talks with a nutcase like Kim Jong Il.
Of course we did have a President that supplied the nutcase with nuclear fuel for his reactors. Result, nukes.
We now have a candidate who wants to do the same for the whackjob mullahs in Iran.
35
posted on
09/30/2004 10:57:58 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
(Ask not what you can do for your country, ask the country what it will do for you!)
To: christie
Kerry doesn't realize that talks with N. Korea have to have Russia and China, N, Korea would just flat lie to the US only.
36
posted on
09/30/2004 11:09:12 PM PDT
by
Mike Darancette
(Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)
To: Mike Darancette
Kerry will do whatever it takes to weaken the U.S. It makes absolutely no sense to me for us to have talks with N. Korea unilaterally. Not only would they lie to use, but any negotiations would not be credible. China and Russia and Japan are neighbors and are at greater risk and have a greater chance of having influence.
Funny that Kerry doesn't think that France should be there. I guess there is no food for oil program to tempt them.
37
posted on
09/30/2004 11:22:34 PM PDT
by
christie
(John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
To: matchwood
re: Kerry is Carter II
Amen! My wife must have yelled that at the tv at least 20 times during the debates!
38
posted on
10/01/2004 5:07:36 AM PDT
by
jwpjr
To: christie
We have to forget debate style and concentrate on points; Kerry's two most dangerous points were discussed here but to reiterate, they are:
Bilateral talks with North Korea, thus letting China, Russia, Japan and South Korea off the hook and we pay the bribes.
Kerry seeking "global approval" before taking pre-emptive action to protect America.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson