Posted on 10/09/2006 6:39:50 AM PDT by kellynla
President Bush addresees the nation from the White House 09:45AM ET
The EO really only matters if we intend to do it ourselves. But we don't really have to be the ones to do the wet work. The EO can even provide plausible deniability when we give our assent to let somebody else do it. My money's on the Chinese, who will in turn use their influence on their regime agents to make it an inside job.
LMAO!
And, thank you, Mr. Bolton.
Just thought I'd highlight these statements.
This is a critical difference. In Democrat world you just have to feel good.
######
Absolutely the Number One difference. They do not feel failure, because their hearts are in the right place. When leaders like Bush try and do not meet expectations they become targets. When leaders like Bush try and succeed (eg, the strong economy) that is regarded as luck, ignored, or denied.
One of the best things that conservatives can do when talking with non- or newly-political people is to point out these two core differences, from which all division flows.
Yes, it's almost noon here in the eastern zone. Haven't the Dems demanded that Pres. Bush resign yet? After all, he knew this was coming and he did nothing. He is at least as guilty as Denny Hastert.
"Jimmy Carter gave them nuclear technology.
They blackmailed Clinton and he caved. He funded (with our tax dollars) it's upgrading. Without Cater/Clinton and U.S. tax dollars, Korea wouldn't have workable nukes today."
It's still going to be a pretty darned hard sell to the public that there isn't some blame in the 18 years of Reagan/Bush/Bush.
"The president said North Korea was "one of the world's leading proliferators" of weapons technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria."
I'm so glad we know it. We've heard about it for awhile. Don't know if we are going to do anything about it. But we know it. And that's important, I guess.
Yep and every softball question the press tosses to her will be answered with... The failed policies of George W. Bush are what got us to this point. Blah Blah blah.... They will continue to blame him because thats just what they do.
Somebody help me here. While I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable person on current events, I simply don't "get" this connection of China and North Korea.
Is North Korea a proxy, as it were, for China? What on earth do the Chicoms get from bolstering up this guy? Does Kim serve as a sort of threatening power up there in the North, a threat to Japan, an involvement in the Mideast that the Chicoms could not do outright?
Anybody can help straighten out my confusion?
Speaking of the UN's responsibilities, have you seen the ad calling on PRESIDENT BUSH to "help stop the genocide in Darfur", when that is (yet another) one of the UN's responsibilities? That commerical makes it sound like it is President Bush's fault there is genocide in Darfur, and that he is supposed to trample over the UN to fix what they refuse to fix.
Who said anything about being humane? In this case, we need to be ruthless.
Regards, Ivan
"The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States and we would hold North Korea fully accountable to the consequences of such action."
When you say grave threat, and you will be fully accountable, that is pretty serious in diplo-speak. A grave threat is answered with grave measures, not sanctions.
Yes that's why the problem with Iran is not as complicated as many people thing. The long hidden fact still is that most Iranians do not like their current government, and did not vote for Ahmadinejad, the Mulla's in Iran did. We don't need to destroy the people to destroy the threat. We need to replace the governments, destroy them if necessary, and replace them with democratic governments elected by the people, like in Iraq, which isn't as bad as the critics like to spew about on a daily basis. The terrorists take heavy losses daily, we do not, the government there rolls on, and attacks take place in less then 5% of the country, effecting less then 5% of the population of Iraq. That's the truth of Iraq that never gets shown on TV. Replacing governments is hard, but it's the key to winning the war. No democracy, a REAL representative constitutional Republic, run by people who were elected by the people, has EVER attacked another free nation with the same kind of government. Period, end of story. It's just never happened. If liberals really want to end the war, they'd get behind exporting free democratic forms of government, but they'll never do that, because most American liberals are socialists at heart and they think that the form of free government we have is bad and the root of all the worlds problems. That's their dirty little secret that conservatives need to expose. Liberals hate real free democratic government because that's what's kept them out of power for over a decade.
They did. He was impeached. How did you miss that??
You are exactly right. Conservatives getting out and voting R at all costs is ALL that matters right now. Liberals do not believe terrorism needs to be fought, and they are not competant to lead, run, or protect this country. Their desperation in manipulating the whole Foley manufactured scandle as the single most important thing in the country to them proves that.
I like your style, r9. :)
Actually, starvation is becoming an increasingly popular means of removing inconvenient life. Indeed, some lives are said to end beautifully this way. They say it's kind of peaceful and dignified.
The advantage of starving someone to death is that you don't actually have to touch them or attack them, bomb them or strangle them. Just make sure they get no sustenance. It's really very clean and efficient.
See comment 338
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.