President Bush: Is He a Liar?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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??

According to the official White House biography, Clinton was the Forty-Second President from 1993 until 2001.

According to the CIA and other US-intelligence agencies, they had been tracking North Korea's progress toward an ICBM capability since the late 1980's.

So, according to your claim, Clinton helped them during his time as Arkansas Governor or even before as Arkansas Attorney General.

Impressive.

What kind of logic do they teach in Germany?

If North Korea was gaining knowledge about ICBM's in the eighties it does not mean that Clinton was helping them in the eighties.

CLINTON HELPED THEM IN THE NINETIES! Apparently Mr. Hinteler does not know this. He helped them gain ICBM expertise in the NINETIES>

I am sure that Mr. Hinterler knows that ICBM expertise begins with basics and then is expanded.

Again, Governor Clinton did not help North Korea get ICBM knowledge in the EIGHTIES when he was governor of Arkansas, he helped them get ICBM knowledge in the NINETIES.

I am surprised that the learned Mr. Walter Hinteler has such a poor time sense.

Bernard, I find it fascinating how evidence for Clinton helping North Korea is far more compelling than man-caused global warming, yet what is the reluctance by libs to not see the obvious, while at the same time they swallow global warming hook line and sinker. Clinton and North Korea is history, plain and simple.

What evidence okie?

What evidence is there that Clinton gave them any missile technology? NONE that I have seen.

Please present any evidence you have of Clinton giving North Korea missile technology. I will be happy to look at it.

Bernard's posting of Podhoretz editorial on Iraq for the 13th, 14th or 200th time has nothing to do with North Korea. It presents no evidence of Clinton providing anything to North Korea.

Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea. Both the US and North Korea failed to live up to the agreement. The US never built the promised light water reactors and was slow in deliveries of fuel oil. North Korea violated the spirit of the agreement in pursuing but never achieving technology for uranium enrichment.

Hot off the press:

Breaking from NewsMax.com
Newspaper Drops Ann Coulter Column

A conservative newspaper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has dropped Ann Coulter's column, becoming the first paper to take that action since controversy began swirling around the author of the runaway best seller "Godless, the Church of Liberalism."

Neither recent, now-disproved charges of plagiarism nor her controversial book played any part in the paper's decision, the paper's editorial page editor told NewsMax.com.

Coulter says that's nonsense.

"When the entire liberal establishment is out to destroy me, a newspaper does not drop my column just [because] of a rotation policy," Coulter told NewsMax.

In case you were unaware of it Bernard. The Apollo program used a three stage rocket. What do you think the US put on it? lollypops?

Bernie et al are so desperate to support their weak arguments he wrote:
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??




The true analysis on North Korea's missile program:

The Nodong launch facility increasingly mesmerized American security planning during the 1990s, with the various North Korean missiles tested from this site constituting the primary threat driving American theater and national missile defense programs. It is fittingly paradoxical that tens of billions of dollars should have been spent, and a range of national policies reoriented, on account of this distressing modest and underwhelming missile test facility. The newly available commercial IKONOS satellite imagery reveals the vaunted Nodong test site as a facility barely worthy of note, consisting of the most minimal imaginable test infrastructure.

It is quite evident that this facility was not intended to support, and in many respects is incapable of supporting, the extensive test program that would be needed to fully develop a reliable missile system. In the United States, typically at least twenty test flights are required in the development of a large intercontinental ballistic missile, while smaller missiles are typically tested a larger number of times before being declared operational. The most noteworthy features of the Nodong facility are those that are entirely absent: the transportation links, paved roads, propellant storage, and staff housing that would be needed to support an extensive test program.

The North Korean missile program has always been distinguished by the disparity between the extremely modest and protracted North Korean test activities and the vast scale of the American response to this program. The modest ambitions of the North Korean test program are clearly revealed by the scale and nature of the Nodong test facility, which is surely the antithesis of Cape Canaveral. The Nodong facility betrays no indication of permanent occupancy, but rather gives every evidence of consisting of a temporary encampment to which launch crews might from time to time repair to test their handiwork. There is a complete absence of any manner of industrial support or other test facilities, and the bare bones test infrastructure is connected by no more than a spidery network of unpaved trails.

The Nodong launch facilities are not designed for winter operations, but only for the occasional satellite launch campaign in the spring, summer, or fall of the year. The complex is located at some remove from major transporation nodes such as the port at Kimchaek or the highway airstrip south of Kilchli. There are no railway connections, nor even paved roads connecting the launch complex with the outside world. While this profound isolation may be only a modest barrier to a test program consisting of a single launch every few years, it is evidently inconsistent with the transportation requirements posed by a serious missile test programs with launches every few months, such as are conducted by America, Russia or China. Although the dirt and gravel roads that connect the facilities at the test site may suffice for tests at intervals of years, a serious test program would generate frequent vehicular traffic that would neccessitate paved roads, since dirt and gravel roads would quickly collapse into a sea of muddy ruts and wallows. Infrequent testing can be supported by trucking in precisely that quantity of propellant needed for the test at hand, but missile test facilities normally include separate liquid propellant storage areas sufficient to support a number of tests. While infrequent launch campaigns may be treated as campground outtings, extensive test programs require the sustained presence of hundreds of personnel, and permanent housing nearby to support this sustained presence.

North Korean ballistic missiles are test fired from a facility on North Korea's eastern coast not far from the town of Nodong, and about 10 km from the town of Taepodong. Initial construction of this missile base in Musudan-Ri, Hwadae County, North Hamgyong Province, was reportedly completed in 1988. Since that time, a total of two missile tests have been conducted from this facility. A prototype of the Nodong-1 missile was detected on a launch pad in May 1990, and the single test flight of this missile was conducted on May 29-30, 1993. And in August 1998 the longer-range Taepodong-1 missile was launched in what was claimed to be an attempt to orbit a small satellite.

During 1999 preparations were detected for the launch of the much larger Taepodong-2 missile. Since May 1999, US reconnaissance satellites monitored developments apparently related to another missile launch. Construction of a rebuilt launch pad was nearly complete by late July 1999. The new pad is evidently for launching the Taepo Dong-2, which has a longer range than the Taepo Dong-1 (with a range of more than 1,500 kilometers) was launched in August 1998. Compared to the previous pad (with a height of about 22 meters), the new pad is 1.5 times taller, standing about 33 meters. As of early August 1999 it appeared that the Taepo Dong-2 vehicle was already complete and is stored near the launch pad. However, it had not been transported over to the launch pad. It is said that it would take two days to set the missile on the launch pad and then to load liquid fuel from a tanker. Therefore, preparations for a launch could be confirmed in advance by US reconnaissance satellites. By year's end these activities were abandoned with no launch resulting.


According to some media reports, North Korea has conducted three or four static tests of Taepo-dong missile engines at Musudan Base in North Hamgyong Province between December 1999 and January 2000. The test facility is roughly triangular, consisting of a single launch pad, a range control facility located 850 meters to the Northwest of the launch pad, and a Missile Assembly Building [MAB] located about 500 meters directly due West of the launch pad. While the MAB is oriented due North, the remainder of the complex is roughly oriented 35° West of North [with incidental variations of a few degrees off this axis]. These three major elements of the test facility are connected by a network of unpaved roads and trails, some of which are evidently peculiar to the test facility, others of which may be associated with local agricultural activitiy.

According to Im Young-sun, a defector from North Korea, for security reasons all inhabitants residing in the area within a radius of 80 Km of this base were reportedly ordered to move out. This claim is evidently untrue, since a number of small agricultural settlements are located in close proximity to the test facility. Comparing the 1999 IKONOS imagery with the 1971 CORONA imagery, it is clear that there has been a significant expansion in the number of dwellings and associated structures in these settlements. Indeed, the missile test facilities are interspersed with active agricultural areas, and there is no evident security perimeter sepearating the missile test facilities from the surrounding agricultural communities.

It is equally evident that the various built-up areas surrounding the missile test facility have no functional association with this facility. There is a complete absence of residential structures that might be associated with missile test staff, as well as a complete absence of larger structures that might provide "industrial" or other operational support. While the casual use of proximate agricultural dwellings or other structures by missile test staff or operations cannot be excluded, there are no identifiable functionally related modifications in the surrounding communities indicative of such use.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17007

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=815

Reading those would give you a start on figuring it out. But of course you will pass all of this off and instead believe Bill Clintons and Madeline Albrights "policy of engagement" was actually a potential fix for the problem. We will never agree, Parados, because you like Clinton and the rest of the Democrats actually think you can trust a nut like the North Korean leader, as well as other dictators. Sign all the treaties you want, with the North Korean guy Parados, they mean nothing. He signed the agreements so he could get aid and technology from us, Parados, which is what happened. Its history. He would not have signed if Clinton had not given him anything, so quit your arguing, you lost, Parados.

From the NYT:

July 14, 2006
Bush Would Let Secret Court Sift Wiretap Process If the court were to rule the program unconstitutional, the attorney general could refine and resubmit it or, conversely, appeal the decision to the FISA appellate court and ultimately perhaps the Supreme Court, officials said.By giving the intelligence court a clear role in the program, Mr. Specter said, the proposal seeks to create balance between giving the president the powers he needs to fight terrorism and ensuring some measure of judicial oversight to guard against abuses.

c.i:Why the president Bush didn't do this from the start is the problem; he created his own problem

"It's an acknowledgment to the president that he can fight terrorism and still have the court review his program," Mr. Specter said. "And I think it allays a lot of concerns."

The Bush administration had argued since the program's disclosure last December that no Congressional or judicial oversight was needed because the surveillance fell within the president's constitutional authority.

Some critics of the program saw the White House's reversal on that issue as a significant concession. But Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, who leads the intelligence subcommittee that oversees the National Security Agency, said Thursday in an interview that she found the idea of the court ruling on the legality of the entire program "a little odd."



Ms. Wilson plans to announce a legislative proposal of her own on Friday that will seek to toughen Congressional oversight of the program and "modernize" electronic surveillance tools.

In a separate interview, Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she saw the Specter-White House agreement as an "end run" around the FISA law requiring the approval of individual wiretapping warrants.

"I have great respect for this guy," she said of Mr. Specter, "but he hasn't been briefed on this program, and he's giving away in this legislation a core Fourth Amendment protection by basically saying that the FISA court has permission to bless the entire program, which will abandon as best I can tell the requirement of individualized warrants."


Ms. Harman, who has introduced legislation of her own to restrict the program, said, "If we want to abandon a core Fourth Amendment protection, we should get on the Specter train, and I don't plan to get on that train." Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union called the agreement a "sham" that was "nothing short of a capitulation by Chairman Specter to the White House."

c.i: Heck, we knew this from very early on; Spector "is" a sham; cries wolf, then concedes to Bush.

Mr. Specter, however, saw the deal as an effective compromise that would bring needed judicial oversight to the program. "I think we've got a result which is really good for the country," he said.

The deal was a result of more than three weeks of intense discussions between his staff and the White House, Mr. Specter said. The discussions followed a public flare-up between him and Vice President Dick Cheney over what the senator saw as the vice president's meddling in his efforts to subpoena telephone company executives to appear before his committee about their role in the security agency activities.

After an exchange of tense letters on the issue, Mr. Cheney indicated in a phone conversation with Mr. Specter that "the White House was serious on negotiating" about the possibility of having the FISA court review the security agency program, the senator told reporters.

The White House has said for months that while it was open to listening to ideas from Congress on the program, it saw no need for Congress or the courts to intervene. Mr. Cheney said in a television interview in February, for instance, that he was confident "we have all the legal authority we need" and that "legislation would not be helpful."

But in the recent discussions the White House, which has come under fire even from some Republicans over the program, agreed to support the FISA court's review. The White House insisted that the language of Mr. Specter's proposal make it optional, rather than mandatory, for the administration to submit the program to the court because Mr. Bush was concerned about lessening "the institutional authority of his office," Mr. Specter said.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush committed to taking the program before the court if the legislation was enacted as now drafted, Mr. Specter and administration officials said.

But there is no assurance that any determination by the FISA court on the program will ever be made public. Mr. Specter said he hoped that such a decision would become public, but he acknowledged that the decision was up to the court. The court, whose 11 members are appointed by the chief justice of the United States, operates in secret, and while the FISA appellate panel did issue one public ruling in 2002, the court itself has never publicly issued a decision.

While some critics brand the FISA court as a "rubber stamp" for government wiretapping, the judge who leads the court, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is known to have voiced strong concerns about aspects of the security agency program while it was still secret. After it was publicly disclosed last December, another member of the court, Judge James Robertson, resigned in apparent protest over the fact that the full court had never been informed of the program.

The proposal does include some concessions sought by the White House. In a bow to the president's inherent authority as commander in chief, the measure states that it "does not unconstitutionally retract any constitutional authority the president has" to collect information from foreign nations and their agents.

It would also give the Justice Department greater flexibility to impose "emergency" wiretaps with a retroactive court order and to conduct "roving" wiretaps and use other technology in surveillance, and it would allow the FISA court to hear all challenges to the program, including several civil suits pending in the federal courts by the A.C.L.U. and other groups. Some critics of the program said the consolidation of the civil suits before the secret court could effectively derail them.

"This is the president and the Congress coming together to codify the capacity for future presidents to take actions to protect the country," said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman.

Cicerone, does anyone else read your cut and pastes? I don't. I used to try to read them, but found out they were mostly uninteresting and not that informative. There could be something informative in there once in a while, but frankly it isn't worth it to read them all.

It's the A2K cut and paste wars. Bernard and ican started it.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2143717#2143717

Had to plunk this item down somewhere...

Under the heading of "moral equivalence" perhaps, or "Kenny Boy's painful time up on the cross", or "analogies so stupid that hope for mankind dims substantially"...

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

I really wonder about the accuracy of that quote and haven't been able to find it anywhere else. The Denver Post mentions that Dr. Lawson attended the memorial service but gives no indication that he was one of the speakers. And there is this:






Dr. Lawson is generally billed as a civil rights leader as he marched with Martin Luther King and has been heavily involved in the efforts to gain equal rights for minorities. He has defended Ken Lay since the indictment, and he is quoted as saying the "Ken Lay was a victim of a lynching" line in several sources, but the reference to Byrd is seems to be only in Salon and in the blogs that have picked it up. Seems a bit out of character for this guy. But who knows? At any rate, I like to look at such things within their full context before drawing a judgment rather than cherry picking a single line or two that by itself is intended to make somebody look bad.

I especially think that courtesy of full context should be extended to Dr. Lawson given his exemplary track record.

Why might anyone try to make the fellow look bad? I've never heard of him previously and I doubt the writer at Salon had either. All that is in question is a bogglingly inappropriate analogy and a completely blind eye to what Lay got up to.

But if we find the quote was inaccurate, I'll get in touch with the chap and Salon and we'll get a correction noted.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Republicans-AP-Poll.html
About bloody time.

I left open the possibility that the quote was accurate. Maybe even inappropriate. I think intellectual honesty would have to leave open the possibility that even if it was accurate, that it might read very differently placed within the context in which it was said. Salon did not do that. Neither did you.

It looks very much that both Salon and you were eager to make the guy look bad. If you say that was not your intent, and perhaps if you explain a more edifying reason that you posted the article, I will apologize for my misperception.

blatham, I wouldn't get too excited about that poll; polls and elections are finnicky animals without much rhyme nor reason.

If it ever comes to pass that democrats take over the congress, I'm not so sure too many things will change for the better - if we go by how democrats have been voting with their republican counterparts during the past several years.

I'll wait until next year - maybe midsummer - before I come to any conclusions about how the democrats are doing as a "potential" majority.

No eagerness to make the fellow look bad. As I said, I've never heard of him before so have no motive or reason. I have no quarrel with Baptists (though I surely have with the SBC) and none with preachers for being preachers. My quarrel is with ideology or partisanship so thorough and extreme that big stupidness results. I take that to be the case here and it is why I posted the bit.

But if the statement is quoted accurately, what broader context could possibly justify or excuse it? Care to have a go at filling in that blank?