I agree to a point, but as bad as our guys have been, the Dems would be worse. They're all worthless, but I'm not convinced they're all EQUALLY worthless yet. Do you HONESTLY thing putting Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi in charge of things would help this situation? They'll spend the next two years trying to impeach Bush for stealing Girl Scout cookies or paying the gardener too much, meanwhile Kim Jong and Iran will be loading up on nukes.
I agree with you, though. I'm disgusted with OUR guys too at this point. I'm just scared of the Dems. No point in jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
What's depressing is that I'm not greatly comforted by our '08 candidates either. Depressing... Why can't we find another Ronald Reagan?
Actually considering the technology was given to them by Clinton, we have tried to handle this internationally with six party talks. Yet the donks wanted us to do one on one talks with them, yet the donks claimed we went into Iraq unilaterally when we had a coalition of 30 plus countires. Yeah, I would not trust the donks to handle this. I am damn glad GW is at the helm right now.
Reagan was a master of the bluff, and his tough talk really worked because our enemies never knew if he would carry out his threats or not. But today we don't necessarily need a man like that because it's far too late to talk, bluff or threaten. With the advent of North Korea's missile and nuclear tests we are suddenly thrust into a situation where we need a man with the courage to use the power at our disposal and fire off a few small, tactical nukes at NK's and Iran's nuclear facilities. If we fail to do this then our enemies will smell the fear. They'll continue to build their nuclear arsenals until we literally can't strike first without a retaliation from them that would be unnacceptable to us.
From this point forward there is nothing in the world that talking will accomplish; the barbarians are at the gates.