President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Good for you, blatham. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Mr. Blatham has contributed nothing to these posts in terms of real evidence since I evicerated one of his arguments on another post. Evidently he feels that definitive evidence is a bon mot.

He is like Pauline Kael who, when Nixon won the Presidency, said--"That's impossible, I don't know anyone who voted for him.

Mr. Blatham evidently thinks that the cogitations of a Canadian transplanted to one of the Democratic strongholds of the US( New York) are the truth.

If Mr.Blatham would look at the composition of the House and Senate of the USA( which has been in Republican hands ever since Clinton fumbled it away in 1994) he would realize( If indeed a transplated Canadian can ever think straight about the USA) that the USA does not begin and end in Times Square or on Market Street in San Francisco. That was proven again and again since 1994.

But, transplanted Canadians know very little about the USA. They should be pitied!!!

Agreement would be with someone other than me.

I didn't include ci's post because I was talking to okie about okie's sentences.

Okie's reading habits are completely transparent. It isn't that he is reading conservative sources because there are conservative writers and thinkers who would have absolutely no use for the cliche-ridden posts he makes multiple times per day. He's reading lowest common denominator ideologues and picks up their cues and their cliches and their thoughtless certainties. He mouths the same stuff and likely thinks that he is thinking rather than what he is really doing...choosing which cliche to type.

And how is that any different from c.i.'s tiresome tirade of insults and pettiness?

Blatham, I respect you and read your posts with interest because you have a history of being interesting. It's not like you to pick out a poster like this when there are so many far guiltier and deserving of your disdain. Perhaps I was wrong in putting such a weighty burden on you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Blatham has contributed nothing to these posts in terms of real evidence since I evicerated one of his arguments on another post. Evidently he feels that definitive evidence is a bon mot.

He is like Pauline Kael who, when Nixon won the Presidency, said--"That's impossible, I don't know anyone who voted for him.

Mr. Blatham evidently thinks that the cogitations of a Canadian transplanted to one of the Democratic strongholds of the US( New York) are the truth.

If Mr.Blatham would look at the composition of the House and Senate of the USA( which has been in Republican hands ever since Clinton fumbled it away in 1994) he would realize( If indeed a transplated Canadian can ever think straight about the USA) that the USA does not begin and end in Times Square or on Market Street in San Francisco. That was proven again and again since 1994.

But, transplanted Canadians know very little about the USA. They should be pitied!!!

Bernard, Blatham has time and again made many wonderful contributions to A2K. His being Canadian allows a different and unique perspective on world events and I consider his opinions valuable. Otherwise I wouldn't have wasted the effort in confronting him as I have.

He is very well read and has an axcellent understanding of American politics.

Hear, hear.

LOL...surely you have.

Look McG, we share a fairly long-standing affinity for one another (likely a shock to my other friends here) even if we've wished horrible things upon each other's mothers in those dark moments. Aside from my preferential treatment of folks who hold similar notions to mine, ci is also a friend so if I have something critical to say, I'll say it to him rather than on this board.

These are odd times. The ideological divide is pretty severe but I think I'd probably like almost everyone on this board if met personally.

Now, that I have testimony from two people that I respect, namely Ticomaya and McGentrix, I rescind my statement on Mr. Blatham, but I would ask both of you to inform Mr. Blatham that part of my opinion may rest on his scurrilous and defamatory comments about me which are clearly in violation of the TOS.

Perhaps,If Mr. Blatham would participate like a gentleman and refrain from using scatological terms( I was really very very surprised at his seemingly puerile use of language) when addressing me, it would be better.

Since, Mr. Blatham( either because he fears me or cannot bring evidence or ideas to counter my statements) chooses not to comment when I destroy his often groundless assumptions, I will have to do it through others who may be willing to pass on the message--My message will not, I assure you, include violations of the TOS as Mr. Blatham has repeatedly done when addressing one of my posts>

Don't be afraid of the report button. It doesn't do much, but it does bring posts to the attention of a hamster somewhere.

McGentrix- I would never use the Report Button. That, in my Universe, would be tantamount to cowardice. I would rather leave the obscentity or scatology uttered by someone like Mr. Blatham there for all to see. I am sure that anyone who thinks about such a response deems such a response as frustration stemming from an inability to respond in a civilized and rational way.

Now, I would never report Mr. Blatham for the use of obnscenity or scatology towards me. I prefer that people view their stuttering frustation at their inablity to debate in a civilized manner.

Berard, Who ic McClintock?

I am curious how some people can come to a conclusion that a missile is the same as nuclear material. Can anyone help me out here?

No one is claiming North Korea just tested 7 nukes. Or are they?

But then those same people seem to think Mona Charen is an intelligence service.

Of course when the title is "weapons program", those people think "program" means actual weapons.

Then these same people claim Clinton built 2 light water reactors in North Korea. Never mind that those reactors were never finished by 2004 as projected. They were still built in this person's mind.

Some people just seem to be out of touch with reality.

Why don't you respond to the substance of the article instead of trying the old tactic of denigrating the messenger. Is the truth being told in the article below? If not, why not? I would have thought you had learned your lesson, Mr. Parados, after your arguments in the Global Warming thread were so soundly thrashed.

These matters, however, are not as amenable to scientific proof as the Global Warming controversy.

But, people who are left wing extremists bent on denigrating President Bush even at the cost of letting the North Koreans acquire Nuclear Missles are just incredibly short sighted. God forbid anything would happen in the future and North Korea would actually launch a missle.

Most patriotic Americans would yell--Let's steamroller those guys


People like Mr. Parados would say--ITS BUSH'S FAULT>

What a moronic stance to take!!!

I can't tell since you didn't post an article below. Thanks for proving your clear skills in debating once again Bernard.

right back at you bud

Here is your article, Mr. Parados!!!

McGentrix- You are correct that Clinton gave North Korea an advantage. As usual, Mr. Parados is ignorant of the situation in the nineties.

Mona Charen

Town Hall, October 18, 2002



"North Korea Says It Has a Program on Nuclear Arms" -- New York Times, Oct. 17, 2002.
President Bill Clinton will be remembered by history for only one thing, which is a bit of a shame since his record is so thoroughly shabby and dishonorable that it deserves closer study.

Clinton's contribution to our vulnerability to terror has been well documented, and now comes news that another of his foreign policies has come to fruition. The North Koreans have admitted what close observers have suspected all along -- that they have a nuclear weapons program and may have already produced a number of bombs. (Oh, and by the way, worshippers of arms control treaties kindly note: North Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.)

The only mystery is why Pyongyang has now chosen to admit it.

In the early 1990s, North Korea, even more than other communist states, was drowning in the consequences of its system. People were starving. A congressional study estimated that as many as 1 million died of starvation by 1998. But the regime was no less belligerent for that. Pyongyang continued to build up its military and was aggressively pursuing nuclear capability. Though its facilities were supposed to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea persistently delayed inspections. Meanwhile, its aggressive posture and rhetoric toward South Korea continued, as did its development of long-range missiles.

President Clinton, observing this situation, saw what needed to be done: Pyongyang would have to be appeased. As former defense secretary William Perry put it, the administration thought it "necessary to move forward in a more positive way with North Korea." In exchange for a temporary freeze on its nuclear program and a mere promise to refrain from developing such weapons in the future, the Clinton administration extended nearly $1 billion in foreign aid for food and fuel oil, as well as promising to build two light water reactors for the North Koreans.

Certainly the administration must have attached conditions? Surely it insisted that the regime provide proof that the aid was not being used for military purposes, and it must have insisted on some form of political and economic liberalization? The Clinton administration must have tied this aid package to guarantees that the North Koreans would cease exporting ballistic missiles to nations like Iran and Pakistan? Actually, no. As Perry explained, "The policy team believed that the North Korean regime would strongly resist such reform ..."

The North Koreans, rewarded for their belligerence, naturally continued down the same path. (And the lesson was probably not lost on other dangerous regimes that seeking nuclear weapons can bring goodies from Washington.) In 1998, they tested a new, three-stage ballistic missile. Did the Clinton administration at last learn the lesson that appeasement does not work? Not quite. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and William Perry held a press conference to announce that the United States was continuing to pursue good relations with North Korea: "We must deal with the North Korean government as it is, not as we wish it would be."

Accordingly, the Clinton administration proposed to lift economic sanctions on North Korea if it promised -- but this time really, sincerely promised -- to stop development of long-range missiles. The North Korean government didn't even deign to respond for a full week -- but the Clinton administration relaxed sanctions anyway.

The Clinton administration officials believed their policies toward North Korea were a success. By "engaging" Pyongyang, they believed, they had avoided war. Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Instead, the appeasement merely emboldened the North Koreans. A Republican study group concluded in 1999 that North Korea "is a greater threat to international stability" than it had been five years before, "primarily in Asia and secondarily in the Middle East." Is it conceivable that the Clinton foreign policy team really believed North Korea could be bribed into decency?

Edmund Burke warned, "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." That includes assuming that they will lie, cheat and betray. The liberal attachment to treaties is thus laid bare for the chimera it is. When strength and resolve were required, Bill Clinton supplied weakness and legerdemain. And in this, as in the war on terror, he has bequeathed a more dangerous world to his successor.

***********************************************************

Clinton provided a substantial aid package to North Korea in 1995 AND LIFTED ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND BUILT TWO LIGHT WATER REACTORS IF THE NORTH KOREANS REALLY REALLY REALLY PROMISED NOT TO DEVELOP MISSILES IN THE FUTURE.

NORTH KOREA TESTED A THREE STAGE MISSLE IN 1998

************************************************************

1998-Mr.Parados--What do you think the North Koreans are going to put on the Three Stage Missle WHICH THEY DEVELOPED WITH CLINTON'S HELP? LOLLYPOPS??

Liberals sit and do nothing? This from I-would-rather-see-all-children-on-this-planet-deformed-or-dead-than-dare-to-teach-about-pollution-and-global-warming Okie?

Why would someone continue to claim that Clinton built 2 nuclear reactors for North Korea after they have been informed that it never occurred?




http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework.asp

It seems no reactors were even started when Clinton was President. Who was President again in August of 2001?

NORTH KOREA TESTED A THREE STAGE MISSLE IN 1998

************************************************************

1998-Mr.Parados--What do you think the North Koreans are going to put on the Three Stage Missle WHICH THEY DEVELOPED WITH CLINTON'S HELP? LOLLYPOPS??

plainoldme wrote:
Liberals sit and do nothing? This from I-would-rather-see-all-children-on-this-planet-deformed-or-dead-than-dare-to-teach-about-pollution-and-global-warming Okie?


plainoldme doesn't still realize that our federal government is controlled by so-called "republicans." As for "liberals," they're a gutless, rudderless bunch that hasn't been effective for the past six years.