"Dishonesty and stupidity - that is really all the Democrats offer these days."

Yeah, and everyone knows that's OUR turf! Dang, no wonder us Repubs are shaking in our re-election boots... maybe we can offer a bulk rate discount, and make it up in volume.

Dang again. I hate self-referencing links. I wanna see how bad Kerry lied, but the link to the July 1999 US Intelligence Report just repeats the story. Any help? THIS STORY [CLICK HERE] has that quote, but it also says:

March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report allegedly claims that North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques.

May 1999: A team of American nuclear specialists arrives in North Korea to begin an inspection of what is suspected of being an underground nuclear weapons site at Kumchangri. No evidence of nuclear activity is found.

May 2000: A second team of U.S. inspectors visits the Kumchangri underground facility, and again finds no evidence of nuclear activity.

July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads.

October 2000: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assesses that North Korea has processed enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons. (But the CIA was a bunch of nannygoats until Cheney worked them over after the war).

Hey, now don't let Kerry make fools of us by parsing his words wrong. If he says "reprocess" but we mean "posess" then he gets the last laugh.

And he laughs like Santa Clause on Zanax.

YOU wouldn't lie to us, would you, Mark? Oh, I get it! It's our way of outdoing the Democrats on everything, including dishonesty and stupidity! We ROCK!

Hey, my post was so good, the server did it four times! Had to stare at that blue screen a few times first, though...

"I do wonder what is it with our Democrats that they feel the have to relentlessly lie about easily discovered facts all the time"-MN

Probably because they know that the MSM won't bother to expose their lies; and that the core of their Democratic supporters are DU and Kos-type wackjobs who will believe these lies.

COngreessive, let me ask you something. . .do you EVER approve of anythign republican or in foreign policy, or is it just a kneejerk reflex that you have to try to tear down anything that isn't in favour of either democrats or American enemies?

Yes, he "sits" on the Intelligence committee, but rarely even attends hearings (i.e. does his job.)

Hey, my post was so good,

No it wasn't. Did Kerry lie or was he stupid? I say both. No need to go off on a tangent. The post is about Kerry and his lies. Go ahead, defend the fraud from Boston. Or can't you?

"I do wonder what is it with our Democrats that they feel the have to relentlessly lie about easily discovered facts all the time"-MN

If there is a MSM conspiracy, why doesn't FOX shout these "easily discovered facts" to the heavens? Why aren't they playing the modern day Paul Revere and breathlessly informing us that our occupation of a non-threatening, sovereign nation really was justifiable?
Are you suggesting that FOX is also part of the "let's gang up on the Prez" mindset? Or could it be, that for the exception of that bastion of cognition Sean Hannity, xenophobic FOX remains silent for it realizes that these "newly discovered docs' are just so much BS.......

"JOHN KERRY LIES AGAIN"
***GASP***
Actually I was hoping to see the exchange between Bolton and Kerry. I had heard alot about it, but unfortunately missed the conversation. Thank you Mark.BTW there is a term for people like Kerry-Pathological- John seek treatment!!!!

It is so very hard for me to ignore a challenge like Scaramonga's even though Kerry is way, way down the list of my favorite people. But nothing in the original topic mentioned any original or official sources to back up the claims that "Kerry lied". And I just don't trust secondary sources pulled from right-wing or left-wing web sites (especially when they're self-linking, lol!). So I thought I'd try to find some original and/or official sources. On the basis of the transcript of Perry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October 1999, which appears to be the one referenced, I'd say that what Kerry said about it was accurate. Here's the link.

Also, Kerry's statements are supported by a Congressional Research Services report detailing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. According to that report, North Korea reprocessed a small amount of plutonium prior to the Agreed Framework, but not anywhere close to the amount required for a bomb. And there is no evidence that North Korea restarted its reprocessing program prior to early 2003.

But NK did cheat very seriously. With the help of Pakistan, and probably Russia (and East Germany earlier on) they began a uranium enrichment program, which they admitted to in late 2002, and which sparked the current crisis. There is no evidence that that program has been successful. But it doesn't have to be -- now they have weapons grade plutonium. And they have restarted their long range missile program.

The report also mentions this: "Recent statements by Pentagon officials indicate that plans for direct military action against North Korea envisage strikes against multiple targets, including North Korean artillery on the demilitarized zone, rather than a strike solely against North Korea’s nuclear installations. However, the extensive commitment of U.S. ground forces to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations limits the ability of the United States to commit sizeable ground forces to any Korean contingency.

So I have to ask: what is the benefit to the US of having no agreement at all?

So I have to ask: what is the benefit to the US of having no agreement at all?

First of all, the "self-referencing link" is in my opinion a coding mistake on the part of the blogger at Texas Rainmaker. Many blogging tools will insert a reference to the default blog if the author forgets to put in the actual one while composing the page. Sloppy quality control on the part of the author (e.g., not checking links) results in what you saw. I would reserve judgement until I saw the actual intelligence report he mentioned. But it is obvious that he saw something in it that indicated Kerry was being dishonest. Of course, Kerry has no history of that, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt, right?

Second, I would turn your question around a bit. What would be the benefit of a bi-lateral agreement with N. Korea? Would they honor such an agreement? They've cheated on them before. Would South Korea be happy about it? Probably not - they are the most threatened by the North. And Japan? They are in range of the missiles that Iran has already delivered to the dear leader of the most oppressive country in Asia. Think they might have a desire to participate? Leaving them out means they have no duty to comply with any such agreement. Not good. Japan appears to be working on its own nuclear program and this threat from the Koreans as accelerated it. Japan will not allow the North Koreans to become a threat to them without action. And WWII showed us what happens if Japan goes on the warpath.

And finally, I'd be willing to bet that much of what is really known about N. Korea's plutonium stocks is highly classified information which only a few are privy to; including the fraud from Boston if he ever showed up for his committee meetings. So he (and Bolton) probably know and cannot reveal facts about it which you and I can only guess. In that situation, I suggest you are in better shape than a coin flip. North Korea is one of the countries named in the "Axis of Evil" by President Bush. They are building up nuclear weapons as fast as they can and nothing we say or do - in six party or bilateral talks - is likely to stop that. Why? Because once they are considered a nuclear threat, they will also be considered too dangerous to oppose or disarm. That is what the pot-bellied dog-eater dictator of NK wants. He cannot survive any other way. So I say we give him exactly nothing. If he wants bi-lateral talks it is because he thinks he'll make out better than in six party talks. Why would we agree to that? So to finally answer your question, no agreement is better than what we had before and what we would have again under talks conditioned on what that tin-pot dictator wants.

If I was constantly being threaten with war, I would get as many weapons as I could. Bolton is human scum. Peace

"So I have to ask: what is the benefit to the US of having no agreement at all?"

The same benefit as having an agreement that the North Koreans do not and will not honor, anyway.

As they have shown in the past!

And, Con-regressive shows his naivete'. The inspectors were shown what the North Koreans wanted them to see - not what was reality. Your own post was Con-tradictive.

Reality sucks, eh Con-regressive?

"So I have to ask: what is the benefit to the US of having no agreement at all?"

The same benefit as having an agreement that the North Koreans do not and will not honor, anyway.

As they have shown in the past!

And, Con-regressive shows his naivete'. The inspectors were shown what the North Koreans wanted them to see - not what was reality. Your own post was Con-tradictive.

Reality sucks, eh Con-regressive?

Sorry about the self-referencing link in my post. I just realized I had the href code, but didn't paste the link in the quotes, so it just referred back to the post itself. It's been corrected.

The reference to lying is about Kerry's claim that no nukes had been processed, despite intelligence reports to the contrary (and considering he was on the SSCI, he ought to know better).

The reference to Perry's testimony is simply to say that if Kerry's quote is accurate about Perry's testimony, then Perry's testimony appears to be an admission by the Clinton administration that the 1994 Framework Agreement was worthless at the moment it was negotiated... and the that the Clinton administration knew this. Thus, it begs the question, why negotiate the deal at all? I suspect to be able to claim some foreign policy success, even if illusory. (Much like claiming credit for the great economy, built mostly on dot com bubbles and cooked books of Fortune 100s. Everything about the Clinton administration was form over substance, which is why it all deflated as he was leaving.

Scaramonga: "First of all, the "self-referencing link" is in my opinion a coding mistake on the part of the blogger at Texas Rainmaker."

A coding mistake seems like a logical conclusion. But given that, it is not at all a logical conclusion to use his argument (which we can't verify in the least) as the basis to claim "Kerry lied". My goodness Scaramonga, given your credentials it seems reasonable to assume that you should be able to spot the weakness in an argument as flimsy as that one. I'm rather disappointed.

And no, we should not "give Kerry the benefit of the doubt." I'm not in favor of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt unless I absolutely have to. And in this case we don't have to. There are first hand sources available in the form of transcripts and official opinions. And those happen to be consistent with what Kerry said.

"Second, I would turn your question around a bit. What would be the benefit of a bi-lateral agreement with N. Korea? Would they honor such an agreement? They've cheated on them before."

That's a valid point. They have indeed cheated before, and it is reasonable to assume that they will always cheat to the extent that they can. They're not alone in that respect -- pretty much everyone does it. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they ignored the Agreed Framework altogether. To think so is obviously incorrect. Like almost every other issue in international politics, it's not black and white. [Parenthetically, TiredofLibBullShit, it's a little naive to think it is.]

There is no question that the Agreed Framework was successful in retarding NK's pursuit of nuclear weapons for many years. But now that Bush allowed that agreement to completely crumble, NK has no reason to postpone their development. Now there is every reason to believe they have been successful in developing weapons grade plutonium, will continue to develop more, and may in fact possess several nuclear weapons. Had that happened on Clinton's watch I suspect you'd be furious, regardless of what situation he inherited from his predecessor. And I would join you in that condemnation. It is very hard for me to make sense out of the fact that we are letting NK reprocess weapons grade plutonium unfettered at a time when we have so many troops committed in Iraq, and when so many other hot spots are flaring up. As I pointed out in a comment in another recent topic, Intel chief Negroponte indicated that it is more likely Iran will achieve nuclear capability through procurement of fissile material (i.e., enriched uranium or plutonium) than developing their own. Where do you suppose that's likely to come from? It seems to me there are only two possible sources: (1) NK, or (2) Russia. Regarding the latter, Bush has not been too good about working with Russia in securing their sources of fissile material either. But that's another story.

It might also be worth noting that NK's ability to reprocess plutonium came by way of a plant they built for that purpose, which was already operational by the end of 1992. The discovery of that plant -- which certainly escaped the notice of Bush's dad, and perhaps Reagan as well (construction apparently began on the plant back in 1986 or so) -- was what prompted the Agreed Framework. Without it, NK probably would have had enough weapons grade plutonium for a bomb more than 10 years ago. So if Clinton was asleep at the switch, so was Bush's dad.

Finally, the part about "Would South Korea be happy about it?" Would Japan be happy about it? The fact is, ALL of the members on our side of the six party talks urged Bush to participate in two-party talks. So I guess the answer is... yes. And doing so is not to say that we are leaving the other parties out. That's ridiculous. It's not like it has to be one way and not the other. Both sets of talks can occur.

But I am quite sure that because progress remains at a stand-still, both Japan and South Korea are taking necessary steps to ensure that they are adequately protected. And yes, as you pointed out, there is more than an insignificant amount of peril in that. For that matter, I'm not so sure molly-coddling India is such a swell idea either. But again, that's another story.

"So I have to ask: what is the benefit to the US of having no agreement at all?"

An agreement that only one side follows is not an agreement at all> Next question.

I'm rather disappointed.

I can live with that. Kerry is a phony and Kerry is a liar. And the fact that the link didn't work initially (it does now), forced me back to what I know Kerry to be - a phony and a liar. I am not presenting a case in court to get a conviction, I am telling you my opinion. And now that the link IS working, you can go check it out for yourself and form your own opinion.

Like almost every other issue in international politics, it's not black and white.

Not sure what you're getting at there, but I think it is clear that if N. Korea has ANY nukes, it is a direct violation of the "agreement" which I could have told you when it was signed was doomed. N. Korea will ALWAYS cheat on anything that it agrees to if it is perceived to be in their best interests by that maniac in charge. Your equivocation sounds like the girl who says she's "a little bit pregnant." If I misunderstood you, perhaps you could enlighten me further.

Had that happened on Clinton's watch I suspect you'd be furious

From the now-fixed link at Texas Rainmaker's site:

July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads.

I suppose I should be furious then. But given it was Clinton, and given he was such a bozo, and given it is exactly what I'd expect from that clown, I can only shake my head.

So if Clinton was asleep at the switch, so was Bush's dad.

Your point being...? I am no fan of Papa Bush. He lost me when he didn't unseat Saddam in 1991. And that stupid "read my lips" thing followed by raising taxes...did me completely in on him.

So I guess the answer is... yes.

Until there was an agreement they didn't like and cried foul because they weren't allowed to participate. Personally, I don't think we'd ever get an agreement from N. Korea for a couple of reasons. One is that we will not, under the current President's control, agree to anything close to what the dog-eater wants. Another is that he will never give up his lust for power beyond his reach. He is living in a bubble in that turned-inward society he's created for himself. All you have to do is look at those ridiculous military demonstrations that are always around him. They serve no purpose but to bolster his ego. Meanwhile his country is starving and the people are eating human flesh. A satellite photo of the Korean peninsula at night shows that N. Korea is completely dark. No utilities, no food, no fuel. And winter's coming. They've already deforested most of the country. This is not a situation nor a ruler you take seriously or with whom you negotiate.

Nice duck, but where's the link? Tired? Ryan? What "US Intelligence Agency"? A year later, two nuclear inspection teams said John Kerry was telling the truth and Mark is lying. By his own quote, some mysterious intelligence agency was making a "claim" that was disputed a year later by the CIA and nuke experts. So, where's Kerry's lie? Speculate all you want about N Korea et al, but, where's the lie?

I guess that on Planet Congressive, there would be no need for search warrants. A cop would just call or drop by and say "Got any drugs here? Got a meth lab working? OK, we'll stop by some time next week, whenever is convenient for you, and you just tell us what rooms you want us to look in. We'll be sure to let you know when to expect us." At least if he applied the same criteria to police work as he appears to think adequate for nternational nuclear inspections.

A lie is saying something you KNOW to be untrue. Not quoting someone else's belief (British intelligence believes that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa) but saying something is absolutely definitively true. Therefore, Kerry was lying.

No surprise---his lips were moving.

But he keeps getting caught in lies, and he keeps having to admit he lied (OK, so the medals I threw over the White House fence WEREN'T mine....) and then he lies some more and has to admit those lies---and the Dems in MA keep electing him, and the national party keeps considering him as a Presidential candidate.

And this from a party which pretends to be HORRIFIED and OFFENDED and DEEPLY DISTURBED by what it calls "lies" by other people. Well, by George W. Bush. Of course, they have to invent the "lies" they accuse him of saying, but they do go on record as being anti-lie.......and then they bow at feet of uber-liar Kerry, he of the Magical Hat and the bloodless Purple Hearts, and oh so many more.

Hey, this is the guy who claimed under religious oath that his highly public marriage of something like 17 years, with two children, simply never existed. Wasn't real. Didn't count. This was a few years after he "saw" and actually "committed" war atrocities----which, by the way, didn't happen.

But why should he worry about lying? Or being caught in lies? His followers don't care, so why should he fret?

Con-regressive, your post proves NOTHING!

"A team of American nuclear specialists arrives in North Korea to begin an inspection of what is SUSPECTED of being an underground nuclear weapons site at Kumchangri. No evidence of nuclear activity is found."

Considering that the North Korean's reactor sites are at Yongbyon. There is storage for fuel and processed material at reactor sites. The inspectors you site did not go there! Imagine that! Perhaps they looked in the wrong place or they were denied access. As in this report.....

"[During the tour of the Radiochemical Laboratory, I asked if we could visit the Dry Storage Building, which serves as the port of entry for the fuel rods into that laboratory, they said that it was not available for a tour because their was no activity and there were no workers in the building.]" from Senate Foreign Ralations Committee hearing....http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_hr/012104hecker.pdf

Oooh, reality bites you in the ass again Con-regressive. Next time look at the WHOLE picture and not cherrypicked items. Then again, you may be using the Iraq WMD logic. They are not seen so they don't exist. Kerry cherrypicked his facts to fit his attack on Bolton and not looked at the big picture - something he his publicly famous for.

"Mr. Ambassador, the bottom line is that no plutonium was reprocessed under that agreement. No plutonium was reprocessed until the cameras were kicked out, the inspectors were kicked out, the rods were taken out, and now they have four times the nuclear weapons they had when you came on watch."

No plutonium was reprocessed before they reprocessed it....sounds like I did vote for it before I voted against it.

You must really like getting bit in the ass. Bullshit walks, get steppin' Con-regressive.

Con-regressive, your post proves NOTHING!

"A team of American nuclear specialists arrives in North Korea to begin an inspection of what is SUSPECTED of being an underground nuclear weapons site at Kumchangri. No evidence of nuclear activity is found."

Considering that the North Korean's reactor sites are at Yongbyon. There is storage for fuel and processed material at reactor sites. The inspectors you site did not go there! Imagine that! Perhaps they looked in the wrong place or they were denied access. As in this report.....

"[During the tour of the Radiochemical Laboratory, I asked if we could visit the Dry Storage Building, which serves as the port of entry for the fuel rods into that laboratory, they said that it was not available for a tour because their was no activity and there were no workers in the building.]" from Senate Foreign Ralations Committee hearing....http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_hr/012104hecker.pdf

Oooh, reality bites you in the ass again Con-regressive. Next time look at the WHOLE picture and not cherrypicked items. Then again, you may be using the Iraq WMD logic. They are not seen so they don't exist. Kerry cherrypicked his facts to fit his attack on Bolton and not looked at the big picture - something he his publicly famous for.

"Mr. Ambassador, the bottom line is that no plutonium was reprocessed under that agreement. No plutonium was reprocessed until the cameras were kicked out, the inspectors were kicked out, the rods were taken out, and now they have four times the nuclear weapons they had when you came on watch."

No plutonium was reprocessed before they reprocessed it....sounds like I did vote for it before I voted against it.

You must really like getting bit in the ass. Bullshit walks, get steppin' Con-regressive.

John Kerry is a freaking idiot. I don't know how any other way to say it. Thank God (Buddah, Allah, Mother Earth, whatever you believe in) he lost in 2004. May he go away...and quickly.

Ok, we all get it. You hate Kerry. But you are STILL ducking. Where's the link to the mystery "claim" that was refuted a year later? Tiredof posts from a 2004 document during the BUSH administration, which illustrates Kerry's point EXACTLY! Gawd, that's funny stuff! You make Kerry's point with your link! Dhoh!

For you lazy folks, just CLICK HERE to read Tiredof's link without having to cut and paste. Dang, Tired, you are too easy!

Con-regressive,

Do you even know Kerry's point, since it changes as frequently as you change your underwear?

You post PROVES nothing. My post shows that there is more than one place to store and process nuclear material and that North Korea is 100% forthcoming in allowing access to their facilities. You base proving Kerry's point ON TWO VISITS TO THE SAME SUSPECTED FACILITY!!! Damn, you are either simply naive or a damn fool!

You are too naive to understand the BIG picture. Your millisecond snippet of a report is supposed to prove what is going on in North Korea for the past 11 years and prove Kerry's ever-changing points???

Don't think so! Well, what should I expect from a party that rights off years of intelligence on Iraq's WMDs, based on a single memo that is suspected to be fraudulent!!!

Bullshit walks, Con-regressive, get steppin'!!!

Texas Rainmaker: "The reference to lying is about Kerry's claim that no nukes had been processed, despite intelligence reports to the contrary (and considering he was on the SSCI, he ought to know better)."

I guess my first question is: why do you think the Wisconsin Project web site is the last word? Do you know for a fact that they are absolutely right? What makes their opinion more definitive than others? I should point out that Bolton also ought to know better -- and he didn't disagree with Kerry. Rather, he stated (correctly, in my opinion) that there was more to the issue than what Kerry was stressing.

But if you still think Kerry was lying, you might want to read some of the other offerings on the same web site you cited. If you do it should become clear that the statement you referred to in your citation is, by their own admonition, open to doubt. So much doubt in fact that one wonders if the statement should read: "A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has enough plutonium on hand to generate between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads." That statement would be much less open to contention. And in essence, that was congressive's initial point as well. In fact, he's also the one that correctly ferreted out your citation before you cleared up the controversy, TR. Unfortunately, congressive stated his opinion in a condescending way, which cast a cloud over the gist of his argument.

"The reference to Perry's testimony is simply to say that if Kerry's quote is accurate about Perry's testimony, then Perry's testimony appears to be an admission by the Clinton administration that the 1994 Framework Agreement was worthless at the moment it was negotiated... "

Actually, Perry's testimony indicates that he felt the Agreed Framework was less than ideal, but not worthless. There's a difference. It was a shade of gray, not black or white. And in fact, the Wisconsin Project agrees in a backhanded sort of way. In another article they state: "The best that can be said about the 1994 agreement is that no good options were available at the time. The proper time to confront North Korea was during the Reagan and first Bush administrations."

But I don't care to defend Kerry anymore. Like I said before, he's not my favorite person. I just think that in this case he was unjustly accused. The evidence brought forth to "prove" Kerry was lying is obviously tenuous. And if it's good enough for you, then you really can't complain too much when the lefties accuse Bush of lying on the basis of evidence that is also tenuous. I've tried to argue them about that as well, in other contexts. Sooner or later I hope we can jettison the partisan silliness where we simply assume the other side is always wrong simply because it's the other side, and actually begin to pay attention to the merits of the argument. Yeah, and maybe someday pigs will fly.

Just a quick note to Scaramonga: I'm glad you can live with my disappointment, lol! Anyway, I hope I cleared up the "black and white" issue for you in this post. And most importantly, I have a question about your last sentence, which reads "This is not a situation nor a ruler you take seriously or with whom you negotiate." I would have to assume that you are advocating all-out war. Is that correct? But then, judging by your past comments, you don't advocate invading countries who have not attacked us. So maybe I have that wrong. But then, if you can't negotiate and you can't invade... what to do?

I would have to assume that you are advocating all-out war. Is that correct?

Short answer: yes. Longer answer: North Korea, and any other nation that aspires to gain access to nuclear weaponry and the means to use it on us fall into a special category. And when their "leader" is a certified wacko like Kim, we have no choice but to get him out of power.

No matter what we attempt to do in the field of negotiations - he will find an excuse to violate the agreement - as he's already shown. So it is clear to me that agreements with that maniac are a waste of time.

As far as all-out war is concerned, it depends on what you mean by that. Nuke N. Korea? No, not necessary. Topple that wacko out of power - absolutely. Offer the people of N. Korea a chance not to be bombed back into the stone age in return for giving up the nuclear fuels and weapons - sure. Offer to serve as a mediator to reunite North and South Korea - which would definitely benefit the North and likely the South as well, sure. But Kim has to go. And my guess he WILL go before Bush is out of office. He won't go willingly, but he WILL go.