North Korea says, "sanctions means war."

Dubya when he speaks always reminds me of Gilda Radner as Roseanna Roseannadanna doing her op/ed piece on the SNL nightly news. "What's all this I hear about endangered fecies?"

He gets in trouble when he speaks off the cuff. Always seems to act surprised when asked a question, even about something obvious. His answers are always kind of goofy, like he's half awake or really hasn't had the chance to think about the subject.

Can't stand to listen to me, not for even a minute. It is inhumane to waste a mind like that! What is he on?

If the shrub were more reticent, who would supply the humor? It isn't what anyone says, but what they do that is important. A silent Shrub, would only cause the partisan left to complain that he arrogantly acts secretly without telling the American People what's happening. Hell, some of that bunch already would have us believe that the Bush family is at the heart of some international conspiracy. Of course, the partisan Right made the same claims against Clinton --- but then they were correct, I think he was a traitor and betrayer of the Constitution. Remember now, I'm a Federalist and equal opportunity political critic.

Such humor Asherman, you slay me!

Asherman, You've got to be kidding! The 'other' party will complain no matter 'what' the shrub does or doesn't do. Thanks for my laugh for the day. c.i.

Asherman: its not just the other side that has problems with the Bush administration and secrecy:
A long-simmering rift between senior Republican senators and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld heated up again at a senatorial retreat last week at the Library of Congress. Top Stories
Sens. John W. Warner and Ted Stevens told President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., that they will no longer tolerate the disrespect and secrecy on military matters they've come to expect from the Bush White House, senior Senate Republican staffers close to the situation said.
Mr. Warner, of Virginia, a veteran of World War II and the Korean War who was recently elected to his fifth Senate term, is the Republican Party's leading voice on defense issues. He expressed displeasure over Congress being continually kept "out of the loop" on important military matters, the staffers said

dyslexia
There is no need for Kings or dictators to keep the peasants in the loop.

If you want to keep Saddam, Bin Laden, and Kim informed, tell Congress. I support secrecy while conducting foriegn affairs and military operations. Only the broad outlines need to be shared with rank and file Senators and Representatives. More information can be supplied, in secrecy to the chairmen of appropriate committees.

On this score, I must agree with Asherman. Too many loud mouths in congress; there's sure to be some leaks. c.i.

so does it come down to we can have democracy or security? i really dont believe that was the intention of the constitution or the reason so many have died in defence liberty. while i agree there are inherent needs for secrecy there are even greater needs of preserving the liberty of an informed citizenry. Bush wants a war and he may get it but if he does so by withholding critical information from Congress which is our voice in government. there just aint much point in calling this a democracy. Totalitarian governments have that luxury because the people don't count. and yeah i am one of those "liberals". Johnson and Nixon did there best to keep Congress and the people in the dark and it harmed us more than history will ever record, it hurt the spirit of a nation.

dys, You make some good points, but I still would hate to see our military endangered by some loose lips in congress. Their past experience with confidential/top secret information is not good. c.i.

The Congress has the power of the purse. It advises and consents to executive policies, but does not direct Executive in those duties within the Executive's reach. In the present case, Congress has made it's approval of a vigorous action against terrorism and the infrastructure that supports terrorism. Military force has been congressionaly approved.

This is about the time that someone usually raises the question of a formal Declaration of War. It is not needed in either Iraq, or North Korea. In fact, the Declaration of War has become a dead-letter due to our treaty obligations and membership in the international community. No Declaration has ever been required, or even expected, when the nation has been attacked. The Declaration of War was the Founding Fathers means of preventing the Executive from aggressive wars. All wars of naked aggression are now illegal by virtue of treaties and membership in international organizations. It is membership in those organizations and treaties that act as a constraint against aggressive war. That was Saddam's first mistake in invading Kuwait. US military involvement in Iraq and North Korea is justified by UN resolutions. It might be asked why we don't use military force more often, or against allies. Silly question. We aren't in the business of shooting ourselves in the foot.

i admittedly have an attitude: one of the main reasons we lost Viet Nam was the people slowly realized they were being lied to. we ended up with national guardsmen shooting students, riots in Chicago and elsewhere and a nation embroiled in self-combat, the lack of "military secrecy" was not an issue, nor would it be today.i absolutely do not want to see this nation go through that grim carnage ever again and if that means we lose some secrecy, so be it. this nation is FAR more important to me that what happens in Iraq. i do not trust Bush 43 nor Rumsfeld nor Rove as long as secrecy is part of their dominion.

Gotta go NOW. Thirty-seventh anniversary dinner. She who must be obeyed is standing over me with a gun. She's a lousy shot, but at short range I don't want to take any chances.

Later.

dys, You'll hear no argument from me on that point! I NEVER trusted GW, but in this case, we must defer to their judgements. If GW and company turns out to be the fraud most of us think they are, history will tell the whole story. If that's the legacy they wish to leave their children and future decendents, I'd sure hate to think the repercusions they will suffer. One big question that bothers me more than anything is that all of them have friends and family in the oil business. If Iraq had no oil, our military will still be at home. Since North Korea has no oil, they are safe from any invasion by our military. c.i.

c.i. but how many people of any nation have to die to prove Bush right or wrong?

If we're talking US citizens, I don't think we're in any more danger than we were two years ago, except for the taliban, and they have mostly been unproductive against us. The war on terrorism will be ongong for our foreseeable future. Iraq is no threat, until they do something stupid, and the world community will be on one side to destroy them. c.i.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/pentagoon2.html

N Korea threatens US with first strike
Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up

Jonathan Watts in Pyongyang
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.

Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."

The Guardian

I'm sure someone at the White House can explain why it is okay for them to have a pre-emptive attack policy, but not North Korea.

The world waits.