Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Published on October 9, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

Yep! Sunday proved that adage! North Korea, and Kim Jung Mentally Il, detonated a nuke. About the size of the Hiroshima bomb. And the reaction? Expected. Those who condemned Bush for Iraq, a nation that had a nuclear program by EVERY acount just a few years before the invasion, now are condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea.

Bush's Crime? He tried Diplomacy, not appeasement (Clinton tried the latter and that is why NK was in the position to test a nuke, but I digress). And for his efforts in insisting upon multilateral talks, and not uni-lateral talks? He did wrong. Yep! They quote a traitor to America on what he MIGHT have done (but of course he never set forth the steps to do anything), and they point to Clinton and Madam Not-so-Bright as the real course to follow (omitting the fact that it was their policies that advanced the NK Nuclear program).

So out of one side of their mouth, they condemn the 'unilateral' invasion of Iraq (unilateral as in 40 nations, but again I digress), and then out of the other condemn the Multilateral talks that Bush insisted upon.

Bush haters are so easy to spot. Just check for the forked tongue, or the both sides of the mouth talking. They cant help but contradict themselves. Hatred is not logical, and neither are they.

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

We, as a nation, do not talk directly with N Korea or Iran because we cut off diplomatic relations with both of those countries well before Bush was elected. Lets try to stick to reality here, shall we?

Even if we had not cut off diplomatic relations, the other principals would have screamed "Cowboy Diplomacy" if Bush had tried to go it alone.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

my article--which drguy so kindly (if cluelessly) provided a link

Why is it that you cannot debate without name calling? I pointed to your article as an example of my point, and apparently I struck pay dirt as you so obtusely pointed out.

how many nuclear weapons did nk produce prior to 2001? whatever

You seem to think that nuclear weapons spring into being in no time. Not so, it takes many years to create the program to get to that position. NK may not have assembled a bomb prior to 2001 (and that is not even a given at this point), but the program was well under way long before 2001.

CharlesCS

on Oct 10, 2006

Hey, people like Kingbee (more like jesterbee) always find it easy to place the blame of Dem mistakes on the President since it didn't exactly happen under their watch. In other words a President can make some really horrible decision just a month before his term is up and the next guy takes the fall. I bet he uses that trick a lot at work and gets many people in trouble for it to. What a sad individual he is. lol.

Oh BTW jesterbee, I peeked into an alternate future where Kerry won and guess what, NK tested the bomb on the US, Saddam gave WMD's to Osama as long as they werer used on us and Iran Destroyed Israel. Guess he didn't do as good as you thought he might have. Sorry.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

In other words a President can make some really horrible decision just a month before his term is up and the next guy takes the fall.

It is not only him. The Dems are blaming Bush for the recession that started months before he entered office.

drmiler

on Oct 10, 2006

kim jung il is 61 years old. how difficult would it have been to string him along for another 10-20 years, playing carrot and stick (with or without china and south korea being in on the game)?

That "might" have worked "if" Slick Willie" hadn't caved in to them in 1993.

Link to Washington post:Link

In 1993, as since, it was the judgment of our intelligence agencies that North Korea likely had one or possibly two nuclear weapons, manufactured from plutonium produced some years earlier. President Clinton therefore decided that it was vital not to allow the North to produce more plutonium. This we did. The Agreed Framework we negotiated secured the spent fuel they held in storage (enough plutonium for five nuclear weapons), and all other plutonium-producing facilities were frozen under inspection. Had these facilities been allowed to become operational, North Korea would by now be producing enough plutonium for 30 nuclear weapons each year, a capacity far greater than, by most estimates, those of India, Pakistan and Israel combined. This has been greatly in our interest.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

That "might" have worked "if" Slick Willie" hadn't caved in to them in 1993.

It still would not have worked for they would scream that Bush was going unilateral again.

Island Dog

on Oct 10, 2006

People have to start realizing that "talking" to lunatics like this will get you nowhere. It doesn't matter how many talks you have.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

People have to start realizing that "talking" to lunatics like this will get you nowhere

Bullies only understand power.

Island Dog

on Oct 10, 2006

Bullies only understand power.

The fact is we tried "talking" to North Korea for how many years? What did it accomplish.....absolutely nothing. Now democrats get mad because Bush won't sit down and basically kiss their behinds. Good.

The best way to send a message is to send in a few stealth bombers and set their progress behind a few decades. I really do not understand these liberals who think talking to killer lunatics will get them somewhere.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

The fact is we tried "talking" to North Korea for how many years? What did it accomplish.....absolutely nothing.

But you should know from the last election that is all democrats like to do. We should have talked to Saddam longer. We whoudll have talked to the French longer. etc. etc. etc.

Island Dog

on Oct 10, 2006

Absolutely. The democrats still have no coherent plan for anything, other than "it's Bushs fault".

They seriously act like this whole problem started with Bush, and now they resort to the usual...."well Bush is making them mad" argument. Seriously....what idiots.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

...."well Bush is making them mad" argument.

I love that one!

"We should not arrest murderers as it only makes the rest mad!"

Yep! That works for me.

Island Dog

on Oct 10, 2006

It shows the ignorant minds of the left in this country. The problem is they don't view Iran and North Korea as threats, just the U.S.

MasonM

on Oct 10, 2006

The problem is that if you actually do anything you run the risk of not being politically correct. It's best to just talk and make it seem like you are trying to do something than to run the risk of offending someone.

If Bush did nothing, they would blame him for that.

If Bush did anything, they would blame him for that.

If Bush had nothing whatsoever to do with it, they would blame him anyway.

If a five year old kid in Peru stubs his toe on a rock I am quite certain that it is somehow Bush's fault.

The N. Korean government spends billions on their military while their people starve. It's Bush's fault even though it had been going on for years prior to him being elected.

My hip hurts today. It's Bush's fault.

Island Dog

on Oct 10, 2006

DNC official policy:

1. It's Bush's fault.
2. If it's not Bush's fault, see rule number 1

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!