In response to your question for Dale in Atlanta. We actually have nothing to predict the future with but the past and what people have to say. There is no way (unless one is a clairvoyant) to tell what the future will bring. Having said that, here below is one suggestion (whether or not you agree with him) of what the spokespeople and congressional Democratic leaders have said and done in the past and may do about the North Korea nuclear test:
North Korea Tests Nuke
That headline should scare people back to the reality that we live in a dangerous world. It should also remind everyone that the â€˜Clinton Planâ€™ set this eventuality in motion. Hereâ€™s what AllExperts said:
It is reported that President Clintonâ€™s officials only agreed to the plan because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed.
Hereâ€™s where AllExperts read that:
Clinton administration officials have privately said that they agreed to the plan in 1994 only because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the project was completed.
Lovely, huh? Whatâ€™s worse is that North Korea later admitted that it stopped honoring the treaty shortly after signing it. Needless to say, Democrats thought it was a good plan:
Speaking in the Senate on March 7, , Senator Biden argued that â€œit would be irresponsible not to discover whether North Korea is prepared to abandon its pursuit of long-range missiles in response to a serious proposal from the United States, our friends, our alliesâ€¦The United States should end our â€˜prevent defenceâ€™ and go on the offensive to advance our national interests, particularly the dismantlement of North Koreaâ€™s long-range missile programme. Now is not the time for lengthy policy reviews or foot-dragging on existing commitments. Now is the time to forge ahead and test North Koreaâ€™s commitment to peace.â€
Sen. Biden didnâ€™t take into account that theyâ€™d abandoned their treaty obligations years before, 7 years to be precise. Implicit in Bidenâ€™s comment is that the current policy had failed. His statement also explicitly said that we should continue with that failed policy.
Bet the ranch that Democrats will blame President Bush for not doing more to â€˜containâ€™ North Korea. Bet the ranch that theyâ€™ll try ignoring the fact that their president is the one who created the mess in the first place.
Hugh is on top of this, saying:
The nuke-rattling is a strategy of a gangster regime left to its own devices throughout the â€™90s, and for which there is now no obvious solution. Iran will become the same problem unless confronted and obliged to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha will find a way to blame Bush and demand hearings into Bush Adminsitration policies, even as the clock ticks down.
The truth is that Clinton dumped a bunch of messes in President Bushâ€™s lap by kicking the can down the road on every major foreign policy issue. The truth is that Democrats donâ€™t care that the Clinton administration did more damage in their time in office to endanger us than every president other than Jimmy Carter.
There isnâ€™t an easy resolution to this crisis but Iâ€™m thankful that President Bush is in office rather than Bill Clinton. People might disagree with President Bush but one thing is certain: He doesnâ€™t believe in Clintonâ€™s â€˜Kick the Can Down the Roadâ€™ approach to foreign policy matters.
One thing thatâ€™s predictable is that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will all issue press releases by mid-morning condemning President Bush for not doing enough to avert this crisis. Itâ€™s also predictable that theyâ€™ll each mention that we need a â€œnew directionâ€ and that the new direction will be â€œtough and smartâ€ if Democrats are elected. Donâ€™t believe their nonsense. Pelosi, Reid and Dean were all advocates of â€œopening bilarteral discussionsâ€ with North Korea and Iran. The time for that has passed.
Whenever you hear Democrats talking about â€œopening dialogues with Iran and North Koreaâ€, play devilâ€™s advocate and ask â€œwhatâ€™s to be gained by that approachâ€? I suspect that most Democrats advocating that approach will be left speachless and dumbfounded.
That should be your first proof that we canâ€™t afford a Democratically-controlled House or Senate. We need serious policymakers, not that bunch. (Per http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/)
It is possible that if the Democrats take Congress in November they may realize that treating the war on terror like a law enforcement problem will not work; that talks with North Korea have not and will not stop Kim Jong-Il from his nuclear activities; that Iran is posing a greater nuclear threat than talks will correct, but why take the chance? One of them is quoted as having said that if Iran fires a nuclear weapon we should bomb them with our nuclear weapons. Does that make sense to you?
From what I have been reading the Democrats in the House plan to start impeachment proceedings against Bush as soon as they take office and Charles Rangel plans, when he takes over the Appropriations Committee, to cut the funding for the war in Iraq. You may not be a student of history, but I am. All of this Democratic naivete sounds suspiciously to me like the isolationists' talk prior to World War II. I really don't think that acquiesing to the Democratic vision of ending the NSA program, repealing the Patriot Act, and planning for how to treat the victims after the terrorists strike us again is going to save this country from Kim Jong-Il's sending his nuclear weapons to other rogue players on the world stage or Islamofascist terrorism. From everything I have read, the Democrats do not seem to realize the seriousness of the world situation and to let them take charge would be like putting five-year-olds in command of a nuclear submarine. The children might not accidently fire the nuclear weapons, but do we want to put our lives on the line in case they do?Comment Posted By Public Enemy On 9.10.2006 @ 11:09
For David (SNAFU Principle) Or read all sides and try to draw a reasoned conclusion. Or, on the other hand, wait until Election Day and see how it all comes out at the polls.Comment Posted By Public Enemy On 8.10.2006 @ 17:16
The anecdotal evidence I am seeing on conservative Web sites is that this Foley mess is a Democratic dirty trick and the Republicans those people are talking to plan to vote to keep Congress in Republican hands so that we do not lose the war on terror and make the United States a terrorist target like much of the Middle East, and especially Iraq. In addition, some of the polls are showing that Foley has had little to no effect on the Republican congressional races. You are reading Democratic sites that of course think the world has ended for Republicans. In the meantime, I recommend you check out Strata-Sphere and MacRanger, both of whom are following up on the discrepancies behind the Foley revelations and the interest the FBI et al. are taking in Democratic operatives.Comment Posted By Public Enemy On 8.10.2006 @ 12:47
While the Democrats and the MSM have been busy with the "Bush lied to get us into war" meme, the Iraq war has continued apace and is on track, it seems to me, to be pretty well wrapped up by summer next year. How will the Democratic-MSM fiction play once the war in Iraq is reduced to mop-up and our troops are coming home? Bush seems to me to be letting time take care of the Democratic-MSM charade. There is nothing to be gained for him by getting into the gutter with them. The only way to disprove their lies is for events to overwhelm them.Comment Posted By Public Enemy On 12.11.2005 @ 11:36
Pages (1) :