<p>Another victory for our Fearless Leader. Bluster, bullying, and then blame others. We should put in the 82nd Airborne into the nuke facilities and–
Check that…they’re occupied.</p>
<p>Not only has Bush made a mess here, I still think he’s going to attack Iran.<br>
Ineffectively engaged with the entire axis of evil.</p>
<p>I am surely going to be ridiculed for saying this, but I am so very sad when I see people calling our president names. Particularly now…</p>
<p>The man, I believe, is not the villain so many would make him out to be. Nor is he an idiot. That, at least is my opinion to which I am entitled. And, I submit, our country will not be well served at this point by further name-calling and ridiculing. When we fall to that level we appear childish and certainly ineffective as a nation of people who stand united in the face of such a threat that now exists in North Korea.</p>
<p>Bush had nothing, or very little, to do with this…ditto Clinton. To think an American President is all-powerful is a remarkably ethnocentric way of thinking.</p>
<p>Agreed, parent2noles. I just am tired of all the Bush-bashing. If anything at all goes wrong in the world, it is his fault. If anything is going well (such as improving gas prices), naturally he is somehow responsible for that as well so he can manipulate the election outcome…</p>
<p>I am just so tired of it and discouraged at the tone of it all. Sounds like so many pre-schoolers at times…</p>
<p>This is a very serious and terrible situation. It’s a shame that anyone would put political upsmanship ahead of getting together and protecting our national security.</p>
<p>churchmusic, I’m in complete agreement with you. H points out that there is seldom anything on the front page of the Boston Globe about lower energy costs or the strength of the stock market. The only things that make it to the Globe are bush-bashing, negative GOP and anything else that is negative about this country.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, why would you expect anything else?</p>
<p>I also find it interesting that the conspiracy theorists think that Bush is behind the falling gas prices ($2.13 around here) yet can’t manage to do anything else right. </p>
<p>The NK situation has been brewing for a while.
<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310221200.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310221200.asp</a></p>
<p>
Talk about living your life wearing blinders. North Korea has nuclear weapons because Democrat Bill Clinton gave North Korea nuclear technology. North Korea with nuclear technology is just one more example of the Clinton legacy. Bush is trying to deal with one more problem left to him and created by the dumbest people in America.</p>
<p>
Speaking of pre-schoolers, I see a new “what did they know and when did they know it” thread has been just started for those who think Foley’s behavior trumps nuclear proliferation as a national concern. Get out the finger paints and crayons and jump on in.</p>
<p>How much you want to bet that some people are going to say this is another Rowian plot to divert attention from Foleygate?</p>
<p>Good point MM–after all, who has more access to nuclear devices than Karl and his evil puppet? An obvious attempt to distract from…instant messaging. I still want to know why Bush’s illegal monitoring of all Americans didn’t turn this Foley business up sooner, but I guess I should restrict such musings to the new pre-school thread.</p>
<p>Cry me a river. Bush makes idiotic political decision after idiotic political decision and then instead of being called to account, we get pieties about how we should all stand behind him at this troubling hour. Bullfeathers. He made his political decisions, let him suffer the political consequences. </p>
<p>ZM, to decry political oneupmanship over this is disingenuous. Bush and the GOP have used national security as a political club, starting with 9/11 and the whole dissent = treason, Sen. McCleland = Osama bin Laden, and a victory for Ned Lamont = a victory for Al Qaeda. </p>
<p>You clearly do not appear to understand the fury that this idiot–demonstrably disengaged ignorant idiot–has provoked. You reap what you sow and Bush is going to reap something of a whirlwind. We’re going to start to settle his hash in another 29 days.</p>
<p>TheDad, your posts are a perfect example of how liberals would be happy to see this country experience any catastrophe if it proved your point. You would cut off your nose to spite your face, and you wonder why conservatives question the loyalty of liberals?</p>
<p>“ZM, to decry political oneupmanship over this is disingenuous. Bush and the GOP have used national security as a political club, starting with 9/11 and the whole dissent = treason, Sen. McCleland = Osama bin Laden, and a victory for Ned Lamont = a victory for Al Qaeda.”</p>
<p>Not disingenuous. I just think that in the immediate moments it would be nice to decry the perpetrator, rather than our president. It’s the initial reaction of Bush hating that bothers me. A reasoned argument afterward would be fine, but I do find political upsmanship inappropriate as an immediate reaction.</p>
<p>“This is a very serious and terrible situation. It’s a shame that anyone would put political upsmanship ahead of getting together and protecting our national security.”</p>
<p>I’m with you on this one! Since our Pres has done such a good job in Iraq, where 61% of Iraqis (double that of 2 1/2 years ago) now approve of killing Americans, Senator Frist wants to get into bed with Mullah Omar, and the NIE states that the Prez has compromised our national security, you would think that instead of political upsmanship, he would get at least one thing right.</p>
<p>“I’m with you on this one! Since our Pres has done such a good job in Iraq, where 61% of Iraqis (double that of 2 1/2 years ago) now approve of killing Americans, Senator Frist wants to get into bed with Mullah Omar, and the NIE states that the Prez has compromised our national security, you would think that instead of political upsmanship, he would get at least one thing right.”</p>
<p>But you’re not upset that this whackjob has a nuclear weapon that could, theoretically, reach the west coast of the US? DOesn’t matter to you as long as republicans lose control of the congress? That post was just unbelievable. When something is truly unthinkable, it sometimes helps to focus on something meaningless because to consider the other would drive a person nuts. Perhaps our liberal friends are just engaging in psychological protection mechanisms.</p>
<p>It worries me greatly, just as the potential of Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of terrorists, or Israeli nukes used against Iran. It’s terrible! Our Prez had six years of diplomacy to deal with the Korean nukes and blew it, just as he blew national security in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Egypt - his Presidency is littered with national security failures.</p>
<p>No liberal here. I just happened to think that the current Administration is made up of a a remarkable group of mendacious frauds, and I see evidence for that virtually everywhere I look.</p>
<p>When Bill Frist thinks it’s time for Mullah Omar to join the Afghan government, we know we’ve got problems, and this particular set of problems is not of the Democrats’ making (they haven’t had the opportunity.)</p>
<p>
And so what is your solution, Mini? If you are so smart go ahead and tell us what the President should do. And the same for you TheDad.</p>
<p>The president’s primary duty under the Constitution is to protect congressional pages from overly-friendly Emails and dirty Instant Messages. Every thinking person knows this. Once we have our own House in order, then we can worry about international affairs and defense. Bring on Granny Pelosi.</p>
<p>What is remarkable here is that N. Korea nukes are no surprise, but GWB and Co. have ignored the threat for his entire administration, meanwhile chasing after evanescent WMDs in Iraq. </p>
<p>If that’s not irresponsible, what is then? </p>
<p>And don’t go telling me he “thought” there were WMDs in Iraq, or that they actually exist and so forth. And if you still do so, then tell me why the Iraq threat was so much greater than the Korea threat when we were “considering” the invasion of Iraq?</p>
<p>Maybe the focus on the middle east is because the terrorists who have attacked this country aren’t from North Korea.</p>
<p>It seems to be the Democrats solution to blame the Bush administration for every problem that arises. Yet, none of these things have sprung up, fully formed, since he took office in January of 2000. The Clinton years are marked by the unwillingness to do any of the hard work required to keep this country safe – they dealt with neither emerging threat of Islamic Fundamentalism nor North Korea’s program for nuclear weapons. So, if Democrats care about this country, let’s hear some solutions, instead of more Bush-bashing.</p>