Kerry wiped the floor with Bush

You're right, he did say that, and it''s nonsense.

North Korea has wanted, from the start, for this to be an issue between the US and them. They have been insistent on bi-lateral talks. Do you believe that's because they, in good faith, want to resolve this unfortunate matter to the good of all parties and the world?

Considering we are discussing a dictatorship which is amassing nuclear weapons for the obvious purpose of nuclear blackmail and the possible purposes of military aggression and profit, on the face of it, we should distrust any approach they are insistent upon adopting.

In addition, China is able to exert far more leverage on North Korea than are we, and while they might not be overly inclined to come to our assistance in resolving the matter, it's risky business not to. A nuclear power on their border is not, I'm sure, particularly attractive to them. They may be able to exert strong influence over NK, but they do not control the madman who reigns there.

Bi-lateral talks between the US and North Korea will make the multi-lateral talks immaterial, and will provide NK with precisely what it wants.

There was never a chance that the US was going to act unilaterally with Iraq. Concerted efforts were made to enlist the cooperation of a broader coalition than eventually materialized, and the actions necessary to form the actual coalition cannot be considered trivial. You may cynically dismiss the so-called Coalition of The Willing, but by any definition, it represents multi-lateral action. The participation of France, Germany and Canada are not required to make a multilateral engagement legitimate.

With Kerry and North Korea, we have the yoeman's work already done in persuading China to join the talks, and a Democratic candidate who is proposing it be undone in favor of US unilateralism. Remarkable!

Yo, timber:

Have a great weekend!

!

I like that...Bush waiting for the bus.

Finn, I don't actually have an opinion yet about North Korean talks as I don't feel I know enough about it. What I think is that it's important to characterize someone's position accurately if you're going to argue with it.

Finn, your post got me to thinking...about China and such....very good point

The school yard approach? You mean like arguing for bilateral talks when your enemy has established multilateral talks?

When will you folks realize that discussing things is not the answer to every problem, and that enemies like North Korea are not well intentioned people who simply have a different perspective on things than us.

So why do we keep letting people who are not well intentioned develop nuclear weapons?

In some cases, discussing things is the answer. A smart person/country/organization realizes that solutions need to be tailored to the problem.

Fair enough, but I think I did characterize his position accurately.

He is advocating bilateral talks (in essence, a unilateral response by the US).

Bilateral talks vs Bilateral talks within multilateral talks presents a difference with the only distinction being that the latter represents a nonsensical attempt to preserve a facade of multilateralism.

It is akin to Bush having argued that he intended to invade Iraq, but only within the context of the continued UN inspection process.

There is a big difference between a unilateral response and a unilateral military response.

And I'm still not buying that bilateral == unilateral, by the definition of the words themselves. Unilateral would be bombing the crap out of their reactors with no warning.

I musta have seen about half of the debate (came in late), and I think he only mentioned his Vietnam experience once while I was watching - and it was a propos understanding the troubles of the soldiers now in Iraq, which would be as relevant a moment as ever I'd say - he understands because he was there himself.


If "I'd be a different President" is not a good argument in a presidential race, what in heaven's name would be?

I like this one, had missed it last night.

Kerry: "by [..] beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America."

Ex-actly.

Oh, thanks! I'd forgotten about that one, was one of my very favorites.

me: I think that we have always had an advantage over North Korea, they are poor except in their millitary. So it is not like those like myself are advocating that we should go to North Korea and say something like, "Please don't build any more WMD" and that is it.


Prior to getting back to you I did some searching. I remembered some of the North Korea debate but not enough. I still don't know too much but I found some pretty good links.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-nkorea-arms-development_x.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/North-Korea-nuclear-weapons-program

Chronology of events
On January 10, 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On January 23, 2003, North Korea and South Korea agree to find peaceful solution to nuclear crisis.

On January 27, 2003, former U.S. President Bill Clinton urged the Bush government to sign a non-aggression pact with North Korea, at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He argued that poverty was driving it to sell missiles and bombs, being its cash crop. The United States should "give them a nonaggression pact if they want that, because we'd never attack them unless they did something that violated that pact anyway." Officials from the United States stated on February 26, 2003 that North Korea had reactivated a reactor at its main nuclear complex.

In a continuing show of force, armed North Korean fighter aircraft intercepted and may have targeted a United States reconnaissance aircraft over International Waters in the Sea of Japan on March 2, 2003. That was the first such interception since April 1969 when a North Korean jet shot down a United States Navy surveillance airplane, killing all 31 crewmen aboard.

On March 6, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed that the United States is considering completely withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea.

On April 24, 2003, the United States, People's Republic of China, and North Korea met in Beijing for trilateral discussions about North Korea's nuclear weapons program. No resolution was reached, and tensions remain high. The United States has raised the spectre of sanctions against North Korea due to Pyongyang's brinkmanship. In the past, North Korea has said that international sanctions would constitute a "declaration of war." On April 27, 2003, South Korea sent a delegation to Pyongyang pushing the North to end its nuclear weapons program.

On May 12, 2003, North Korea declared the 1992 accord with South Korea nullified, which agreed to keep the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, citing U.S. hostility as a threat to its soverignty. S. Korea responded on May 14 that since the U.S. has continued to proceed with its promise to build two nuclear reactors in the North, the accord is still effective. The South's announcement came as its president Roh Moo-hyun met with George W. Bush in Washington DC to discuss a common approach to North's pursuit of nuclear weapons. [ On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.

On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, has the means to deliver them, and will soon be carrying out a nuclear test to demonstrate this capability.

In August 2004, United States intelligence officials and non-governmental experts concluded that diplomatic efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea have failed to slow their weapons development programs. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html?hp>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/international1254EDT0609.DTL On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.

On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, has the means to deliver them, and will soon be carrying out a nuclear test to demonstrate this capability.

In August 2004, United States intelligence officials and non-governmental experts concluded that diplomatic efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea have failed to slow their weapons development programs. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html?hp] Chronology of events
On January 10, 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On January 23, 2003, North Korea and South Korea agree to find peaceful solution to nuclear crisis.

On January 27, 2003, former U.S. President Bill Clinton urged the Bush government to sign a non-aggression pact with North Korea, at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He argued that poverty was driving it to sell missiles and bombs, being its cash crop. The United States should "give them a nonaggression pact if they want that, because we'd never attack them unless they did something that violated that pact anyway." Officials from the United States stated on February 26, 2003 that North Korea had reactivated a reactor at its main nuclear complex.

In a continuing show of force, armed North Korean fighter aircraft intercepted and may have targeted a United States reconnaissance aircraft over International Waters in the Sea of Japan on March 2, 2003. That was the first such interception since April 1969 when a North Korean jet shot down a United States Navy surveillance airplane, killing all 31 crewmen aboard.

On March 6, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed that the United States is considering completely withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea.

On April 24, 2003, the United States, People's Republic of China, and North Korea met in Beijing for trilateral discussions about North Korea's nuclear weapons program. No resolution was reached, and tensions remain high. The United States has raised the spectre of sanctions against North Korea due to Pyongyang's brinkmanship. In the past, North Korea has said that international sanctions would constitute a "declaration of war." On April 27, 2003, South Korea sent a delegation to Pyongyang pushing the North to end its nuclear weapons program.

On May 12, 2003, North Korea declared the 1992 accord with South Korea nullified, which agreed to keep the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, citing U.S. hostility as a threat to its soverignty. S. Korea responded on May 14 that since the U.S. has continued to proceed with its promise to build two nuclear reactors in the North, the accord is still effective. The South's announcement came as its president Roh Moo-hyun met with George W. Bush in Washington DC to discuss a common approach to North's pursuit of nuclear weapons. [ On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.

On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, has the means to deliver them, and will soon be carrying out a nuclear test to demonstrate this capability.

In August 2004, United States intelligence officials and non-governmental experts concluded that diplomatic efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea have failed to slow their weapons development programs. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html?hp>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/international1254EDT0609.DTL On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.

On August 28, 2003, North Korea announced that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, has the means to deliver them, and will soon be carrying out a nuclear test to demonstrate this capability.

In August 2004, United States intelligence officials and non-governmental experts concluded that diplomatic efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea have failed to slow their weapons development programs. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html?hp]

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/George-W.-Bush-administration-policy-toward-North-Korea

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-plan-to-invade-Iraq

The fact is that Bill Clinton/Clinton administration had those bilateral talks with North Korea and wound up backing off putting any pressure on North Korea while giving North Korea a full five years to comply with the verbal agreements in those talks. Well, of course North Korea has totally ignored any such agreements and has merrily kept right on working on their nuclear program that entire time. Bush is absolutely right that further bilateral talks now would be counterproductive to national/world security, would alienate those who are working on the problem with us, and would have about as much affect as the UN resolutions had on Saddam Hussein.

That is exactly why a Liberal is the last thing America needs in office. Ask the Clinton Administration. Bush never would have fell for a dictator saying he's only going to use nukes for humanitarian purposes..
Talk about limited thought processes:

Friday, Aug. 6, 2004 Hypocrite Kerry 'Couldn't Think' for 40 Minutes on 9/11
John Kerry is getting his comeuppance for his snotty comments about President Bush's actions on 9/11.

Here's what the Massachusetts Democrat said July 8 when Larry King asked where he was on 9/11, according to CNN's own transcript:

'Nobody Could Think'

"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."

How appropriate that Kerry lumps himself in with fellow left-wing non-thinkers such as Boxer, Daschle and Reid.

Thanks to the several readers today who sent us this fascinating bit from Blog for Bush: "the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing 'nobody could think.'"
=========================================
In certain peoples eyes they feel Kerry won the debate. I saw him as the same liar and "make it as you go along" candidate he always was. He even lies about calling Bush a liar!

KERRY CLAIMS HE'S "NEVER, EVER" USED WORD "LYING" IN REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON IRAQ. JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth." SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months. Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03)

AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations' process and only go to war as a last resort. I will tell you that from my war fighting experience, I believe there is a test for a president as to how you go to war. And that test is whether or not you can look in the eyes of parents and say to them, 'I did everything possible to avoid the loss of your son and daughter, but we had no other choice in order to protect the security of our nation,' and I know this president fails that test in Iraq." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03)

LEARN MORE ABOUT KERRY/EDWARDS' SHIFTING POSITIONS AT WWW.KERRYONIRAQ.COM

Kerry mentioned his Vietnam experience repeatedly. My wife and I would chuckle everytime he mentioned it.

i guess i would chuckle too if our current president stepped up to his national guard duty lol

What is humorous is Bush's "service" not Kerry's, a man who served his country when asked and didn't run and hide when faced with the possibility of the ultimate sacrifice.