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.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:58:16 -0600, Gilligan wrote:


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

The US Embassies? This article was written the day after Clinton
retaliated. Notice any familiar names?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

And, the Republican response to this retaliation? Remember accusations of
"wag the dog"?

Uh, those involved with the first WTC attack are now in jail.

"In two separate jury trials in Manhattan federal court, half a dozen men were
later convicted of direct roles in the bombing. Mamed Salameh, Ahmad Ajaj,
Mahmud Abouhalima and Nidal Ayyad were found guilty in March 1994.

In November 1997, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of masterminding the plot,
and Eyad Ismoil was convicted for driving the rented Ryder truck into the
garage.

Each man was sentenced to 240 years in prison, or one year for every year
of expected life they deprived their victims."

Oh, and the USS Cole? That happened on Oct. 12, 2000, the month before
GWB was elected. Rather than be concerned with the last two months of
Clinton's term, a fairer question would be what did GWB do about in the
year he had before 9/11?

Give me a break. Try to actually cite facts. At least Clinton went after Bin
Laden. Bush didn't do anything until he had no choice after 9/11. Now, even
Afganistan is spiraling out of control.

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Give me a break. Try to actually cite facts. At least Clinton went after
Bin Laden. Bush didn't do anything until he had no choice after 9/11. Now,
even Afganistan is spiraling out of control.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/7...ovak02.article

Haiti spiraled out of control for Clinton.

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