http://tinyurl.com/g7coe

Stopping terrorism begins at home.

Gilligan wrote: crap snipped

"President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted
to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North
Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise,
President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence
that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to
the bomb) as the final straw.

Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad,
Bush=Not whatever Clinton did.

All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North
Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots
and sticks.

Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq,
the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly,
utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.

Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on them.
But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been shuttered
since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded tonight was, if
I understand this correctly, almost certainly the product of that
plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.

So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his bluff
and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and all the
atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have done
essentially nothing. "

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010275.php

Yeah, and Bushco's reaction... it was a bad, bad thing. Wow. I guess no
invasion is planned.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/g7coe

Stopping terrorism begins at home.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5368

Why are the Democrat's priorities on a homosexual former Congressman (who
most likely did not violate ANY law) rather than a crazed madman who just
blew off a nuke and claims he'll use them on the US?

Isn't this negligence?

8 years of Clinton's softness on terror was enough.

Huh? I believe the president is a republican. He's the one claiming he won't
tolerate a nukyaler North Korea. At least Clinton tried to deal with it.
Bushco has been awol.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5368

Why are the Democrat's priorities on a homosexual former Congressman (who
most likely did not violate ANY law) rather than a crazed madman who just
blew off a nuke and claims he'll use them on the US?

Isn't this negligence?

8 years of Clinton's softness on terror was enough.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

. At least Clinton tried to deal with it.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/221552.shtml


His own Secretary of State may give him an "A" for effort, but look at what
really happened.

Clinton did nothing about all those US Embassies that were toppled, nothing
about the first WTC attack, nothing about the Cole.

Historically, the Democrats have really gotten us into big messes. VietNam
is just one example.

I don't think America should take the risk of voting for any Democrat.

Gilligan wrote:

Why are the Democrat's priorities on a homosexual former Congressman (who
most likely did not violate ANY law) rather than a crazed madman who just
blew off a nuke and claims he'll use them on the US?

I don't know. Why is the Republican's priorities all about blaming
everything on Clinton?

You guys might actually want to take responsibility for *something* at
some point, instead of making excuse after excuse after excuse for your
collosal failures.

//Walt

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...a.missles.html

"Walt" wrote in message
...

You guys might actually want to take responsibility for *something* at
some point, instead of making excuse after excuse after excuse for your
collosal failures.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/232727.shtml

Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You guys might actually want to take responsibility for *something* at
some point, instead of making excuse after excuse after excuse for your
collosal failures.

http://www.newsmax.com/...


Are you capable of speaking for yourself, or are you limited to passing
out links to propaganda sites?