Bi-Lateral Talks with North Korea (Question)

9/30/04 | christie

[christie]

I'm confused. Why does Kerry stress a coalition for the war on terror and going to war with Iraq but thinks we should have bi-lateral talks with Korea.

Can someone explain this?

[rewrite]

I thought the same thing. You and I can't be the only ones that are thinking that....whhoooo as I was typing Hannity nailed him with this very point.

[Chummy]

"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."

And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.

On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.

His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.

[Chummy]

"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."

And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.

On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.

His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.

[Chummy]

"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."

And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.

On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.

His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.

[Chummy]

Sorry about the multi-posts; posting of my comment went berserk like TahRAYsah when she meets someone opposed to Mr. PreDebate Manicure.

[AB AB AB]

The common denominator in Kerry's foreign policy is this: Whatever the other country wants, that's what we should do.

This was in evidence several times tonight, viz.

1. North Korea wants bilateral talks, so we should go it alone with North Korea.

2. The UN/France/Germany wants a veto on our middle east policy, so we should give them a veto.

3. Other nations wanted more goodies from us in the leadup to the Iraq invasion, so "we should have sat down with them and asked them, 'what else can we give you?'" (my best recollection of his actual quote).

4. Some other example I can't remember at the moment.

[matchwood]

Bilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il extorts America. Multilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il has to hold a gun to the heads of five countries. Kerry is Carter II.

[anton]

Jimmy had bi-lateral talks with Korea and it got him the Nobel Peace Prize.

[christie]

All the responses are great. We need to make an issue of this.

Coaliton in Iraq -- Unilateral in N. Korea.

Kerry is wrong on all issues.

Kerry has sold us down the river too many times.

[Leo Carpathian]

Wait, he will change his position tomorrow.
The RATS will advocate exactly opposite what Republicans are doing.

[RJL]

Bilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il extorts America.

Exactly correct.

They want the same deal they had with Clinton and Maddie, that won't fly with President Bush.

[Howlin]

John McCain just said on MSNBC that to his knowledge NO American president has EVER agreed to bi-lateral talks with North Korea.

[christie]

We need to make an issue out of N. Korea!!!

[christie]

bump

[jwalsh07]

Only John Kerry casn explain it. No President has ever had bilateral talks with a nutcase like Kim Jong Il.

Of course we did have a President that supplied the nutcase with nuclear fuel for his reactors. Result, nukes.

We now have a candidate who wants to do the same for the whackjob mullahs in Iran.

[Mike Darancette]

Kerry doesn't realize that talks with N. Korea have to have Russia and China, N, Korea would just flat lie to the US only.

[christie]

Kerry will do whatever it takes to weaken the U.S. It makes absolutely no sense to me for us to have talks with N. Korea unilaterally. Not only would they lie to use, but any negotiations would not be credible. China and Russia and Japan are neighbors and are at greater risk and have a greater chance of having influence.

Funny that Kerry doesn't think that France should be there. I guess there is no food for oil program to tempt them.

[jwpjr]

re: Kerry is Carter II

Amen! My wife must have yelled that at the tv at least 20 times during the debates!

[matchwood]

We have to forget debate style and concentrate on points; Kerry's two most dangerous points were discussed here but to reiterate, they are:

Bilateral talks with North Korea, thus letting China, Russia, Japan and South Korea off the hook and we pay the bribes.

Kerry seeking "global approval" before taking pre-emptive action to protect America.