[seamus]

Thanks for getting through all of that. I found it fascinating, and would love to see the media present them with their previous views on the use of force, unilateralism, how much of a coalition is enough to satisfy them that we're not "going it alone," and the morality of going after brutal dictators.

They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?

[dirtboy]

Nice work and a bump

[PhiKapMom]

Great work! I watched Kerry and the like question Powell and I couldn't believe their arrogance and condenscending attitude toward Sec Powell and this Administration.

[VRWC_minion]

It may be much more basic than politics. It may be basic good vs. evil. Remember a divided house doesn't stand. It seems to me that those who I believe are motivated by evil seem to be supporting each other on this proposed war.

[finnman69]

They also seem gungho in attacking North Korea now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837523/posts

Democrats: Bush Ignoring N. Korea Threat (remember this when Bush goes after N. Korea)
AP ^ | 2/6/03 | KEN GUGGENHEIM


Posted on 02/06/2003 5:47 PM EST by finnman69


By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrats said Thursday that President Bush (news - web sites), in a push for war against Iraq, is ignoring a potentially greater danger in North Korea (news - web sites)'s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

The White House, however, said it is has "robust plans for any contingencies" involving North Korea. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) repeated that the United States has no plans to attack North Korea, but that Bush "has retained all his options."

Concern about the nuclear program has grown after North Korea announced Wednesday it was putting the operation of its nuclear facilities on a "normal footing." That could mean it is about to produce nuclear weapons.

Bush administration officials have said North Korea's program does not constitute a crisis, and Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "I still feel it is possible to find a diplomatic solution."

Democrats, though, said Bush was not taking the threat seriously enough. In contrast with their praise of Powell's presentation Wednesday on Iraq to the United Nations (news - web sites), they pounced on what they saw as weakness and inconsistency in the administration's North Korea policy.

"Mr. President Bush, please, please, if you don't want to enunciate it, in your mind Mr. President, treat this as a crisis because it is, if not contained now," Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee, said in the Senate.

Added Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota: "The president should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks."

At the committee hearing, Sen. John Kerry (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., accused the administration of having a "fuzzy policy." Kerry, a declared presidential candidate, contended the administration had taken all options off the table, including the use of force and economic penalties.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., accused the administration of a policy of "designed neglect" toward North Korea and on other diplomatic fronts.

Powell said the administration, with its campaign against terrorism as well as stronger relations with Russia and China, had a foreign policy "geared to the problems we have in the 21st century."

Powell said in separate meetings Chinese and Russian foreign ministers in New York, he spent more time discussing North Korea than Iraq.

"We are deeply engaged in these issues. We are in touch with the North Koreans through a variety of channels," he said.

The two countries continue to exchange harsh words. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called North Korea a "terrorist regime." North Korea warned that any U.S. attack on nuclear facilities would "spark off a total war."

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) expressed concern over that threat and said, "This kind of talk only hurts North Korea."

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said this week that the Pentagon (news - web sites) may bolster U.S. forces in the Pacific in case North Korea tries to take advantage of Bush's focus on Iraq.

The administration has few promising policy options in North Korea.

North Korea has one of the world's largest armies and is believed to have one or two nuclear bombs. The United States has been reluctant to start direct talks with North Korea, saying it does not want to submit to blackmail.

Powell said Bush wants to help North Koreans, "who are starving, who are in economic distress, but we have to find a way to do it that does not suggest to the North Koreans that we are doing it because they have this tool, this weapon, that they use nuclearization of the (Korean) Peninsula as a way to get us to do it because we are threatened by them."

[jigsaw]

Nicely done!
Paging FoxNews!

[537 Votes]

They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?

Like Mao attacking the Nationalist Chinese while the Nationalist Chinese are busy defending China from Japanese imperialism.

[eyespysomething]

Good stuff...

[Cicero]

The sad thing is that even a lot of Republicans and conservatives still don't understand what happened in Yugoslavia.

That was the world's first Politically Correct War, fought to help Muslims kill Christians in the sacred name of Multiculturalism. No wonder folks like Biden voted for it.

[11th_VA]

THANK YOU so much for posting this!!!! I was trying to do some spade work myself.

[Cindy]

"ARE THEY FOR US OR AGAINST US?" (Updated Daily.)

[GailA]

How did Teddy The Drunk do? I think he's been opposed to all the actions we've had for many, many years.

[nutmeg]

bump to read later

[Kay Soze]

They were Gung Ho about Attacking Viet Nam, Haiti, Cuba and Somalia as well.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you!

Great job.....

[Dragonfly]

Bump!

[kimosabe31]

"They couldn't have changed their mind this year because there's a Republican in the White House, could they?"

I think the answer is simple...no big "pay day" in it for the libs if they support GW policy and he succeeds. If he succeeds, he probably gets re elected. They always support whitehouse policy when their guy is in the saddle. Why??? There's ALWAYS a big pay day for them. There is no right or wrong where they're concerned. Damn national security. The only thing that counts with them are $$$'s.

[AFPhys]

Very nice job. I commend you. I especially enjoyed Demon Pelosi:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, March 11, 1999: .... I, for one, do not think that we, Congress, has a role in voting on whether the President should send peacekeepers into a region, so I do not think that this debate is a necessary one, and I think again that the timing of it is unfortunate. "

Wonder how her supporters spin the change...?

[Cvengr]

I've considered this, but my observations of liberals and even some conservatives aren't consistent with the dualism proposed,....there seems to be something more.

I tend to believe that there is something behind conspiracy theories with regard to Freemasons, Satanists, or Luciferians, which might actually lead or guide some of the groups which influence events. IMHO, not the majority of any one poitical party,..probably less than 1 %, but diversely linked interests with some unity between them.

I'd then say 30% of the populace consider events similar to how we might discuss them here on FR. Perhaps liberal, perhaps conservative, not in any conspiracy, but by acting reasonably can easily be played by some with ulterior motives.

IMHO, there's another 5% out there that is strictly anarchist, amoral, or criminal. and probably a large percentage of apathetic, people with varied other interests who might support one cause or another simply because of some particular individual interest they hold.

But with all of this said,...some things don't seem consistent. Clinton and many who support his ideology, for lack of a better descriptor, for instance. This fellow and his entourage don't seem to represent the American people, but rather some sick organized crime syndicate. Perhaps not in official power now, but nonetheless they remain, defiantly in the shadows and not so powerless.

The national climate seems to have returned to normalacy, yet Clinton and those of his ilk are still defiantly out there, possibly engaged in things we will never be heinous enough to even detect as the tip of their iceburg.

I can understand some Senators gaming international events so as to gain more national political party power, or to position themselves or their party for future conditions, but there still seems to be underlying agendas beyond simple partisan politics.

IMHO, I don't believe all persons are involved in conspiracies, but they do seem to remain incredibly consistent for all of their complexity, even after taking simple human character into account.

Many things are explained by laziness, stupidity, desire for comfort, greed, lust, (every sin under the sun), desire to win, refusal to lose, rebellious will in general,....but still there seems to be something more significant at hand.

I consider this everytime I board an aircraft and fly across the nation. Looking down upon cities and subrban areas where millions upon millions of people lead very rigorous lives and yet, the numbers of familiar faces in media and politics seem resiliently consistent. There must be a metric to discern the odds of such persons remaining in authority while so many of equal, greater, or more current skills are ignored.

And this in a land of freedom, compared to someplace like Cuba, where the same dictator has remained for a lifetime.

I have't figured it out,...maybe when somebody does, they'll let me know.

[weegee]

Leftwing hypocrisy will never be exposed in the mainstream media. Party loyalty exists above all else.