Replies

To: Nathan Zachary

Now Bush has to respond, and I hope his response is "Allow UN inspectors in immediately, and then we will talk".

Wouldnt it be ironic for Kerry and cBS to complain that Bush's UN stance is only angering North Korea

59 posted on 10/19/2006 8:53:52 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (If you dont vote on election day, then who are you electing?)

To: MaineVoter2002

What seems odd is this:

""If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy,"

Now, wasn't that what Bush was demanding all along (except any concession on the US part until Il dong stopped his nuclear program)? Why is il(l) Dong suddenly "Sowwie"? And what 'concession; is he after that couldn't be asked at previous talks? As I say, I smell a RAT, somebody is talking with the enemy that shouldn't be, and they only reason for doing that is political gain at election time.

68 posted on 10/19/2006 9:09:08 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary (Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794