North Korea detonates nuclear weapon

[Bud Fox]

Bud Fox is glad liberals opinions cause so much consternation among the right wing sheep on this board. My first observation is to ask why you think Democrats should be presenting "plans" when it is the Republicans who are the ones who are actually in office? Bud Fox is sure if the Democrats had one ready, the Republicans would be grateful. It has become obvious to everyone that the big thing going on with the Republicans is that they have no plan, other than to blame things on whoever was president some six years ago as they run off to rehab for crimes and sex offensives.

It is amazing how like an alcoholic the GOP has become - first denial about Iraq, telling us all we were missing the good news and denial about how the president's policy of continually insulting and ignoring the North Koreans was "keeping us safe", coupled with continual blaming of others for one's own problems, like some one blaming one's parents for corrupting their "inner child".

The first thing to ask is, What was Bush's plan, other than to pour another cold one or line out another hit? It seemed to be to isolate and refuse to talk to the North Koreans, classifying them as members of the axis of evil even as usual he had no proof of any NK involvement in 9-11. He really had no sophisticated diplomatic plans at any time other than trying to use fear on these people by invading Iraq as he rattled his saber in their direction, utterly forgetting that the Koreans have fought us and fought us bravely, before and have little fear of doing so again. His father's diplomatic point man, James Baker, has even chastised him publicly for his refusal to engage in one on one diplomacy.

But if you want Bud Fox?s opinion, here it is, Bud Fox thinks the first thing we should do is fire Rice and Rumsfeld and get some people in there who know what they are doing.

[Charity Case]

Bud, I think you may be new to American politics.  Your claims are all back-assward.  To say the Republicans have no plan but to place blame is pretty ignorant and hypocritical for a liberal.  The reasons the liberals didn't run away with both houses and the presidency in 2002 is because they lacked any plan for Iraq.  Liberals are a very disorganized group.  The only thing they are organized on is placing blame on Bush for everything.  Hell there were some blaming Bush for Foley being a sexual predator.

You can see it in this thread as well.  The conservatives have stated ideas for proceeding and the liberals have all just placed blame.  It's funny how this board is such a good snapshot of the real world.

Then you make ignorant statements like "pour another one of line up another line".  The man tried coke in his early days.  So what?  Do you actually think he's a coke head?  I mean that's ridiculous.  Have you ever tried weed?  I know I did when I was younger.  Does it make me a pot head today.  Of course not.

Instead of just placing blame and throwing insults, why not discuss politics like a grown up and come to the table with some real opinion on what needs to be done?  And saying we should go into bilateral talks so we can be extorted by NK is a bit unintelligent.  Why should we put ourselves in a position to be extorted?  Why should we put ourselves in position where its us against them, one on one?  We are not their neighbors.  We are not the only country in the world.  We have no business getting involved.  Wasn't that your war cry leading up to Iraq?  You guys say "Fuck Bush" on this one.  I say "Fuck NK".  You seem to forget who the real enemy here is.  I think you want bilateral talks only because Bush wants 6 party talks.  If Bush goes bilateral talks and the US gets bribed, extortd and screwed, you all will be lambasting him for not getting other countries involved.  Bush is right on this one guys.  I know you'll never utter those words, but it's true.

It's early and I seem to be rambling, but one more thought.  We'll see real soon if the midget leader of NK was just blowing smoke.  The sanctions have been set.  One more nuclear test and the sanctions will be increased to include the possibility of war.  One thing is for sure, even if you hate Bush as most here do, he's not likely to lose a blinking contest to a man with Napolean's disease.

[Brody]

Bud, I think you may be new to American politics.  Your claims are all back-assward.  To say the Republicans have no plan but to place blame is pretty ignorant and hypocritical for a liberal.  The reasons the liberals didn't run away with both houses and the presidency in 2002 is because they lacked any plan for Iraq.  Liberals are a very disorganized group.  The only thing they are organized on is placing blame on Bush for everything.  Hell there were some blaming Bush for Foley being a sexual predator.

You can see it in this thread as well.  The conservatives have stated ideas for proceeding and the liberals have all just placed blame.  It's funny how this board is such a good snapshot of the real world.

Then you make ignorant statements like "pour another one of line up another line".  The man tried coke in his early days.  So what?  Do you actually think he's a coke head?  I mean that's ridiculous.  Have you ever tried weed?  I know I did when I was younger.  Does it make me a pot head today.  Of course not.

Instead of just placing blame and throwing insults, why not discuss politics like a grown up and come to the table with some real opinion on what needs to be done?  And saying we should go into bilateral talks so we can be extorted by NK is a bit unintelligent.  Why should we put ourselves in a position to be extorted?  Why should we put ourselves in position where its us against them, one on one?  We are not their neighbors.  We are not the only country in the world.  We have no business getting involved.  Wasn't that your war cry leading up to Iraq?  You guys say "Fuck Bush" on this one.  I say "Fuck NK".  You seem to forget who the real enemy here is.  I think you want bilateral talks only because Bush wants 6 party talks.  If Bush goes bilateral talks and the US gets bribed, extortd and screwed, you all will be lambasting him for not getting other countries involved.  Bush is right on this one guys.  I know you'll never utter those words, but it's true.

It's early and I seem to be rambling, but one more thought.  We'll see real soon if the midget leader of NK was just blowing smoke.  The sanctions have been set.  One more nuclear test and the sanctions will be increased to include the possibility of war.  One thing is for sure, even if you hate Bush as most here do, he's not likely to lose a blinking contest to a man with Napolean's disease.

Charity dont even bother with this kid, He is so twisted and warped! Hes hates the U.S. He hates the Military, The same people who fought and died so he could spew the junk that he spits out. Common sense is thrown out the window when these people think. hes blinded by his hatred for the president and the country that he cant see the truth. Were not the bad guys! Were not the people who allowed a measly 2 million people die of starvation, were not the country who has an estimated 200,000 in concentration/work camps. but in his  mind we are the bad guys.

[sandman]

But if you want Bud Fox?s opinion, here it is, Bud Fox thinks the first thing we should do is fire Rice and Rumsfeld and get some people in there who know what they are doing.

BF tries to provide an original idea, but still just ends up playing the blame game!! 
no thoughts on what america could do next.

so NK extorts america, continues to seek nuclear weapons, plays games, lies, and does not honor agreements. bush calls them on it (and if you didn't know NK was a major global threat already, you live under a rock), but bush is the bad guy? all because he called NK out on their actions?

hopefully the DEM leaders in washington have some true ideas since they will soon be in control. i think it's impossible for them to fumble THIS opportunity. control is waiting for them on a silver platter.

[Bud Fox]

In desperate straits, the GOP has reverted to blaming the Clinton administration for its failed policy toward North Korea.

By Joe Conason


Oct. 13, 2006 |

North Korea's apparent nuclear blast exposed the incoherence not only of Bush administration foreign policy but of the Republican midterm political strategy as well. While White House underboss Karl Rove has long planned to win this November's elections on a "national security" platform questioning the strength and patriotism of the Democrats, the developments of the past several days have showed that the Republicans are in a reactive mode, unable to master the policy agenda, and reduced to flailing against their perennial target: They've reverted to blaming Bill Clinton.

Debating the Korea policy of the Clinton administration could hardly be what Rove had in mind when he designed his party's midterm strategy. His original plan, a variation on the successful blueprints used in the 2002 and 2004 elections, was to label the opposition "Defeatocrats" who would "cut and run" from the "war on terror," leaving the nation defenseless against bloodthirsty enemies. What Rove's plan obviously didn't contemplate was continually worsening circumstances in Iraq -- and stark proof of the resulting American military and diplomatic paralysis in defiant moves by North Korea and Iran. In an unusual moment of lucidity and candor, National Review's Jonah Goldberg confessed last Monday that Pyongyang's test -- although possibly a distraction from the Mark Foley mess -- undeniably represents "a failure of U.S. policy ... President Bush denounced the Axis of Evil five years ago and promised that he would do everything to keep its members from getting nukes. Well, North Korea just detonated one. Iran is well on its way to getting one. And Iraq, well, that's not quite the bright spot we hoped it would be." Not quite indeed, particularly with former pal Bob Woodward now denouncing the president for concealing the truth about Iraq from the American people and himself.

Still, it was startling to watch the Republicans respond to a boilerplate critical statement from Sen. Hillary Clinton by mounting a full-bore, multilevel assault on her husband's policies. At first, the White House refrained from "playing the blame game," as the president likes to say, and instead allowed surrogates to do the attacking. The first to step forward, unsurprisingly, was Sen. John McCain (or "Rove's poodle," as he is known without affection on a listserv I read). Speaking as if there had actually been nobody in charge at the White House, the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon for the past five or six years, McCain excoriated the 1994 agreement negotiated between the Clinton administration and the North Korean regime as "a failure" that had rewarded Pyongyang repeatedly without achieving anything.

Swiftly following McCain's attack, the Republican National Committee began raking former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as a stooge of Kim Jong Il. According to RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former secretary is somehow responsible for North Korean nukes because she shared a toast with the dictator and gave him an autographed basketball. This tactic was reminiscent of those old pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein -- except that Albright had actually accomplished something when she talked with Kim.

Both McCain and Mehlman ignored the central achievement of the Clinton policy, which was to maintain monitoring of Pyongyang's plutonium supply for eight years -- and thus prevent the building of plutonium bombs or the transfer of those materials to other states or terrorist organizations. The North Koreans started a secret uranium enrichment program precisely because they could not use reprocessed plutonium to build weapons under the 1994 Agreed Framework. Since the Bush administration cast aside that process in 2002, Kim's scientists have been freed from the scrutiny of international inspection.

Whatever the merits or defects of Clinton's diplomacy in Asia, however, the political risks of focusing on that topic seem far greater than any potential rewards. Already once in this season the Republicans have learned (or should have learned) that angering the former president is unwise; he is far more popular than Bush is and considerably more skilled in argument than anyone on the other side, including McCain.

Even if Clinton's policy was completely misguided, why should any sane voter accept the notion that current policy problems are his fault? Didn't the mature statesmen and women of the Bush regime declare a clean break from the previous administration as soon as they assumed power? Where have they been since January 2001 and what have they been doing? What are they going to do now?

Coming from the Republicans as they face the increasing prospect of defeat in the midterm elections, the Clinton-bashing tactic stinks of political desperation and policy exhaustion. Flogging a "Big Dog" pi?ata may motivate the party's die-hard right-wing base -- but if that is Rove's objective four weeks before Election Day, he, his president and their party are in even greater trouble than the latest polls suggest.

[Bud Fox]

Charity dont even bother with this kid, He is so twisted and warped! Hes hates the U.S. He hates the Military, The same people who fought and died so he could spew the junk that he spits out. Common sense is thrown out the window when these people think. hes blinded by his hatred for the president and the country that he cant see the truth. Were not the bad guys! Were not the people who allowed a measly 2 million people die of starvation, were not the country who has an estimated 200,000 in concentration/work camps. but in his  mind we are the bad guys.

Stooge!

[sandman]

Memo to BF:

Politicians on the right, place blame on the politicians on the left. and the reverse is also true.

these people are tied to one side or the other. and since their success or failure is very much tied to the success or failure of their party, they try to make their own party look good. and make the other party look bad.

it's call POLITICS. it's how the game is played.

glad i could help clear that up for you. 

[Bud Fox]

I say "Fuck NK".  You seem to forget who the real enemy here is. 

Shock and Awe 2: Korean Boogaloo won't have the same cool look and feel as Bagdhad had since NK will be able to lob chemical and biological rounds at both US troops and SK cities causing massive kills. It will be a major buzzkill for the Freedom isn't Free multimedia shows that the Weepublicans like to show at church and fundraisers [redundancy] after every battle starts.

Those overlaid graphics that Chickenhawk shows with F16's and Shock and Awe bombs going off and Eagles just don't have the same "kick" when the headlines show 20,000 US Troops killed in first day of fighting and Seoul loses 200,000 in biological attack.

That Million Man Army, as funny as it may be to watch marching in parades, is a very dedicated military. It won't be the cakewalk that Iraq wa...wait a minute. If Iraq is still a problem after 1000 days.

[Bud Fox]

so NK extorts america, continues to seek nuclear weapons, plays games, lies, and does not honor agreements. bush calls them on it (and if you didn't know NK was a major global threat already, you live under a rock), but bush is the bad guy? all because he called NK out on their actions?

 

Let Bud Fox ask you something.  Are you a complete DOLT?

Bush broke Clinton's plan, allowing NK to create nukes. While he was tripping over his panties at Tora Bora and letting Osama into Pakistan, NK was left unattended. Now we have a serious problem.

Your fascist Nazi cunt leader failed us.

[Bud Fox]

  It's funny how this board is such a good snapshot of the real world.

Yea, you guys are a bunch of psychos and fascist fucks.

why not discuss politics like a grown up and come to the table with some real opinion on what needs to be done?

Read often, or at all?

Bud Fox did.  Fire those in charge now and get somebody in there that understands what the hell is going on. They have failed us already, and the world can not waste any more time with these assholes in office. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. Iraq is a pig with a bikini on, and you think we should allow the framers of that mess take charge with NK?

[Drew]

Bush failed. But name a leader who didn't fail regarding North Korea? There isn't one.

[AtariLegend]

Bush failed. But name a leader who didn't fail regarding North Korea? There isn't one.

If more people said what you have, this thread would have alot less nonscence on it.