Patters

From CNN breaking news: North Korea test-fires at least three missiles, one of them a long-range weapon that the U.S. has been monitoring, U.S. sources say.

(See cnn home page.)

So, six years into Bush's presidency, all the right seems to have to say for itself is, "It's Clinton's fault." Nevermind that laughable explanation, the real question now is, What should Bush do?

OhExaulted1

Bush should have someone show him on a map where it is located.

QuiGon

Well it certainly ain't Bush's fault. The Clinton administration were so proud of themselves for getting North Korea to sign a treaty agreeing not to develop such technology, but they didn't bother to actually follow up or consider the notion that North Korea would break that treaty the day after they signed it.

Well, when they're done laughing at Kim Jong Il for the missile that failed, they simply work with Russia, China and Japan to step up international pressure on the already impotent North Korea.

Blue Collar

Remember this interview?

http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/hiller/22/

__________________
Dwight D Eisenhower's

January 17 1961

Farewell Address
We annually spend on the military security more than the net income of all United States Corporations.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bill of Right's 1 to 10 of the constitution.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Patters

From the party of personal responsibility comes the blame the other guy attitude. Nothing is Bush's fault, not even 6 years later. Clinton engaged NK and Bush did nothing; did not even try to sustain Clinton's agreements with NK.

Can you give me an example of how something can be Bush's fault? What would he have to do with regard to North Korea, Iran, or Iraq for it to be his fault?

Do you have a link? Think we'll do with NK what we're doing with Iran, follow the Clinton and approach and negotiate and compromise?

QuiGon

Yeah, I remember that. Bush was asked questions that 99.9% of the country wouldn't know the answers to either.

QuiGon

Maybe because even NK was not sustaining NK's agreements.
Oh, I blame Bush for how poorly the War in Iraq has been run. I support the war, but I am the first to say that the way it was run from the reasons for going to war to the actual occupation itself has been a travesty.
What good is negotiating and compromising when you make deals and they break those deals immediately after they are made...?

patsfan13

So let me see, Bush is a cowboy and should be impeached for going to war with Iraq 'unilaterally' (forgetting about the Brits, Poles, Aussie, Italians, ....and others).Bush is doing 'nothing' for trying to have a bilaterial policy with respect to N Korea. I think I understand, if Bush does something it is wrongm doesn't matter what he does it will still be wriong.

2 points here. N Korea had nukes before Bush came into office. Clinton got snookered by Kim Jong Ill, Bush deals with the aftermath. Dealing with N Korea has to involve the assent of S Korea and Japan why? well Souel is 20 miles from N Korea and 1 nuke could ruin the day of the 11 million or so who live there. He also could deliver a nuke to Japan.

So pretending that you handle Iraq and N Korea the same way is silly.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

QuiGon

I have given my reasons for supporting the war many times in the past. I will briefly restate them here, but I am really getting sick of you asking the same questions over and over again just because you don't like my answers. See, your problem is you can't respectfully disagree with anyone. You have been blinded by your irrational hatred of George W. Bush. You spend your entire life obsessing about the man, and it has become so frightening, you do your own cause more harm than good.

Anyway...

Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, George Bush addressed a joint session of Congress outlining the basics of what would be known as the "Bush Doctrine" whereby we would attack the terrorists as well as any nation providing them safe harbor and support. I support this Doctrine. Saddam Hussein was clearly someone who supported terrorists and provided them with safe haven to the best of his ability. None the least of his offenses are that he paid Palestinian terrorists a reward for killing innocent Israelis. I support the notion of fighting terror and fighting Al Qaeda on their turf, and not ours. Do you think it is a coincidence that no attacks have occured on American soil since we took the war to them instead of sitting around and waiting for them to bring it to us...?

patsfan13

Wel said, but rational thought doesn't appeal to some.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."