Oh really? What negotiating has been done under Bush? Hmmm?

"our Democrats, especially on the left"

Why do you keep saying that? All Democrats are on the left!

I hate to sound crass, but you cannot reason with nor negotiate with radical islamists. They want one thing and one thing only, and that is world domination. The only way to win is to destroy them, and the madrasses that create them.

Here is a perfect reason. Funny and true! http://drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

Here is a perfect reason. Funny and true! http://drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

Good post, Arcman. Islamists even turn violent over cartoons. Here we go again. Muhammad cartoon violence Part 2...

Danish Embassy Attacked in Iran
10/10/06
"Protesters hurl petrol bombs at Danish mission in Iran"

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Dozens of protesters pelted the Danish embassy in Tehran with stones and petrol bombs on Tuesday after Danish television broadcast footage deemed insulting to the Muslim Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.

Denmark’s state TV aired footage on Friday of a number of members of the youth wing of the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party (DPP) drawing cartoons in August mocking the Prophet. Iran condemned the broadcast.

Reuters witnesses said protesters hurled stones and petrol bombs into the embassy compound. The crowd chanted “Down with Zionists” and “God praise the party of God”.

Riot police guarded the embassy and two fire trucks stood nearby. Firefighters extinguished a tyre which was set alight next to the embassy compound wall, the witnesses said.

arcman, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What does Islam have to do with North Korea?

Mark,

But the main point remains: our Democrats, especially on the left, want to shake hands with barbarians in the hopes that we can work out a deal with people who want to drink our blood.

It's called diplomacy. You know, that thing that would have happened if Bush didn't cut off diplomatic ties with North Korea in 2002? Now we have no options; we certainly don't have the troops nor the will for a war on the Korean Peninsula.

Mark:
"We've got a tricky problem with North Korea and the only real solution is the end of the North Korean regime - the last thing we need is Democrats who think the solution means the preservation and propping up of the North Korean regime."

Haven't I been saying for months now that we needed to get the troops out of Iraq because we'd need them elsewhere?

Soldiers aren't nation-builders nor policemen. The government tried to use them as such, and now we are stuck.

That solution is not currently viable, Mark. Do we have a Plan B that we can implement before Kim Il Dong gets his missiles working?

Winnow and Hick,

We have plenty of forces available for war with North Korea, if it comes to that; keeping in mind that in any conceivable war, we'd have the South Korean army available for use - but war with NK means the loss of literal hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Korean non-combatant lives, as well as massive economic dislocation, perhaps leading to worldwide depression. When you ad in the complications of China and Russia, war with NK becomes an exceptionally unattractive option.

The problem isn't that we stopped diplomacy - the problem is that we tried it at all. NK was on the verge of collapse back in the 1990's and was threatening war in order to blackmail the United States in to propping up the NK regime...the natural result of this, given we had a Democrat in the White House, was that we propped up the NK regime. Our one chance to get rid of NK prior to its obtaining nukes was thrown away because Clinton's Administration was afraid of NK bluster. Now we've got nuke-armed NK, and its a pickle we're in.

You on the left can spend all the time you want blaming President Bush, but he's done the best he could with the rotten, Clinton/Carter hand he was dealt (and what in heck got in to Clinton's mind to make him think that Carter - of all the fools - should be our chief negotiator, I'll never know).

We might end up having a war in Korea over this - I pray God we don't, but the fault of the war will ultimately lie in the discredited idea that you can negotiate with people who have aims opposite from yours.

If they wanted to be taken seriously as a world power and not propping up the NK dictatorship; China could EASILY handle this situation... they have a billion people there and four million troops and their "forward deployed in the region."

How about Russia... they're right next door.

Unless Rep. Murtha suggests China be better suited to handle any problems in NK from say, Greece. (okay, a dig I know... but still Murtha was silly to suggest it)

Winnowhead...sounds to me like you advocate negotiating with terrorists who try to blackmail nations and peoples.

If that isn't appeasement, what is?

Warrior, I'm not advocating anything at this point. I have no clue what we should do. I do know that in 2001-2002, when North Korea indicated it's intentions to kick inspectors out and openly weaponize Uranium, we should have done more than isolate the country and cut off diplomatic ties. Now they have exploited our preoccupation with Iraq and have entered the world of the nuclear powers.

What is your proposal? Bush's appears to be: "We will not stand for this." Well, what does that mean?

It means we employ the means we always would have used in this situation, isolation and targeted sanctions.

The only military plan that was ever conceived was a massive air assault with the ROK troops holding the line, so any talk of our troops being tied up in Iraq is moot, they would never be used en-masse on the Korean peninsula anyway.

Perhaps if the previous administration hadnt spent year after useless year trying to assuage a rogue regime from the goals it never intended on trying not to achieve, we might not be in this position.

All along NK has been demanding not only the farm but all the livestock too, meanwhile China sits by and swats down any talk of meaningful sanctions or action against them. The Clinton strategy of bribery didnt work, that much was obvious, what would we have gained by increasing our extortion payments? Nothing, thats what.

With NK on the verge of collapse I would imagin they would try anything, including threatening to launch a nuclear warhead toward the US to garner something. What is the democrats plan for this? What Basketball player need to sign an autograph this time?

Surprise suprise - I think you have it all wrong, Noonan.

"The problem isn't that we stopped diplomacy - the problem is that we tried it at all. NK was on the verge of collapse back in the 1990's and was threatening war in order to blackmail the United States in to propping up the NK regime...the natural result of this, given we had a Democrat in the White House, was that we propped up the NK regime. Our one chance to get rid of NK prior to its obtaining nukes was thrown away because Clinton's Administration was afraid of NK bluster. Now we've got nuke-armed NK, and its a pickle we're in."

Jeez Louise! The best way to hasten NK's collapse is to engage NK - the worst way is to have NK continue to be a hermit kingdom in a bunker. Did you not learn anything from Nixon's rapprochment with China? At the time Nixon elected to engage China and bring her out of her shell, she was undergoing the brutal Cultural Revolution. It was a horrific regime cut off and hostile to the outside world that showed little promise to evolve into a more peaceful society well integrated into the world community. But that is precisely what happened.

You see, what totalitarian regimes thrive under is isolation and external belligerance. What makes them crumble is contact with the outside world. A flood of consumer goods and western cultural products do not "prop up" Stalinist regimes - indeed they are the most effective tools for eroding them. Radios and TVs are instruments of subversion.

Reagan too understood this. Reagan was tough, yes, but he knew that you needed to talk to your adversaries (*especially* your adversaries). The Soviet Union was by far the biggest threat the US has ever faced - an authoritarian regime that threatened us with nuclear holocaust for decades. Yet Reagan established more diplomatic contact with the Soviets than just about any other US president. And while the US arms build up certainly played a big hand in hastening the downfall of the USSR, Gorbachev's policy of "glasnost" - openness - was also instrumental in the demise of Soviet communism.

Not communicating with NK only prolongs the regime, and strengthens the hand of internal hardliners. Contact and engagement, on the other hand, fortifies the position of those who may be open to moderation. The move towards greater moderation is the inevitable result of greater contact and integration.

What has all of Bush's tough guy bluster and complete disengagement achieved? Nothing. In fact, far worse than nothing. By casting Iran and NK as evil beyond redemption, and refusing to talk to them, he is the one who is propping up those regimes. Bush's policy of non-engagement towards NK has been in place for 6 years - the result is a mushroom cloud.

The most incompetent presidency ever.

Aarontime, you are way off, the most incompetent presidency ever actually happened between 1977 and 1981.
Malaise, gas lines, electricity rationing, high unemployment, skyrocketing interest rates, the Dow at 300, double digit inflation, cardigan sweaters...

We are not even in the same galaxy as we were then.

"cardigan sweaters..." by: Finn Grove

lol.
:P

The "solution" is sanctions on North Korea, checking every NK vessel capable of exporting nuke tech to terrorists, and arming Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons (or at least beginning the process).

So do you give a Diplomat a bodybag when he goes to visit Al Queda? There is no reason with them, they just want to kill in the name of Allah. What they would give to have a high profile american by the throat.

Since Youtube has become so anti republican - I just wanted to share this -
See hotair - The Zucker Ads - To True for the MSM - to even discuss.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/10/video-the-zucker-ad/

arcman the bushbot...
radical islamists!
Hilarious, are you people starting to understand why I call you pathetically stupid?
arcman, you're the greatest, you take all the work out of bashing bushbots.

Mark, do you realize Clinton dedicated his entire presidency to pre-empively undermining Bush, it's true. Look at the North Korean issue, Clinton actually held open communication with them, and didn't even threaten regime change. Bush took charge, and the master Clinton plan began to work, first Bush closed communication and started talking regime change. North Korea withdrew for the non proliferation treaty like Clinton told them to. Meanwhile, from the Clinton estate in Arkansas, where he is still hiding Osama bin Laden order the 9-11 attacks with Clinton's personal approval. Distracted with Iraq because of 9-11, Bush forgets about North Korea, all part of Clinton's plan. North Korea afraid of future open communication, re-starts their suspended nuclear program to regain attention in hopes of having their regime changed. Bush sternly declares North Korea must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and demands Iran freezes their enrichment program. North Korea test some long range missiles as advised by Clinton, and Bush reiterates his declaration that North Korea will not be allowed nuclear weapons, and set another deadline for Iran. Now North Korea has tested the bomb, and the delivery system, Iran will pay deeply for this. Chaos will soon consume the entire middle east, and just as Clinton planned, Bush will go down in history as the worse president ever. It's all a huge Democratic conspiracy.

Read this article from Newsweek on September 28th, 2002...Democrats take overall lead in polls 47% to 40%. Funny, I remember the GOP actually winning seats in that election.

Aarontime....supporting appeasment one post at a time.

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud of you. Unfortunately the 50,000,000 plus who lost their lives no so much.

James,

I guess that is lefty humor...

Aaron,

You're putting the cart before the horse - Gorbachev only tried Glasnost because his regime was dying and that was a way to try to save it...he didn't reckon, however, on the fact that you can't be neither fish nor fowl...he couldn't get a partially free communist system to work. But it was the US buildup, especially SDI, which forced Gorbachev's hand.

As for NK, however, the USSR paradigm doesn't work - Gorbachev wasn't insane, and neither were the rest of the USSR leadership...Kim is insane...he's putting on Stalinist parades and building nukes while his people are eating tree bark...he's threatening war with SK which has one of the best equipped armies in the world, while the NK army is armed with 40 year old weapons and equipment. We can't engage with someone like him - there's nothing to engage on...he has nothing we want or need.

What are you going to do? Work out a deal with Kim? How do you gain assurances he won't backslide? What about the NK people? Are they to continue under the Stalinist boot because you think your peace is sweeter than their lives?

"I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney
are the only ones supporting me" - George Bush
Show your support for the president at www.LAURAandBARNEY.com

Another Reason to Not Elect a Democratic Congress...

'A trying time' at Ramadan for US Muslims: Deutsche Presse-Agentur: ...A North American council of Islamic scholars this year approved shifting from lunar observation to a firm astronomical calendar for setting religious holidays. Muslims hope the standardized, long-term calendar will help them lobby school boards, employers and other official bodies to recognize Islamic holidays.
********

The Left will help Muslims to further Islamicize America's schools, businesses and other official bodies out of "respect" for "multiculturalism" and "diversity". Meanwhile, the Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas have become "Spring Break" and "Winter Break" on most American school calendars-thanks to the Left. Islam is a violent, misogynistic and tyrannical religion. Stand up for American freedom and democracy! Vote Republican!

Looks like Europe is finally waking up to the danger of Islam...Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center

The New York Times: BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.[..]

Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist.[..] His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

[..] When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.

[..]In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.

[..]“A lot of people, progressive ones — we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right — are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60’s and 70’s,’ ” said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.

“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.”

Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.

[..]Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.

Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.

[..]Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.

In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.

With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”

Noonan:

"You're putting the cart before the horse - Gorbachev only tried Glasnost because his regime was dying and that was a way to try to save it...he didn't reckon, however, on the fact that you can't be neither fish nor fowl...he couldn't get a partially free communist system to work. But it was the US buildup, especially SDI, which forced Gorbachev's hand."

Please. SDI did not bring down the USSR. SDI did not work (still doesn't) and the Soviets knew that the laughable space-based platform being imagined at the time could be easily spoofed or disrupted before any nuclear exchange (as Hans Bethe laughed, you'd only need to sprinkle sand in the orbital path of one of the satellites to wipe the system out!). Under your twisted mythology, you seem to think the Soviets looked at American plans for an unworking and unworkable star wars system and said to themselves, "Oh nooo, we better just collapse right now!" lol!

Yes, of course, Glasnost was a last desperate attempt to save the Soviet system. However, instead of propping up that system, it only served to accelerate its inevitable demise. So my point stands: greater outside contact only undermines authoritarian systems.

"As for NK, however, the USSR paradigm doesn't work - Gorbachev wasn't insane, and neither were the rest of the USSR leadership."

No, Gorby wasn't insane (although when Reagan started getting friendly with him, many proto-neo-cons were desperately trying to convince everyone that Gorby was just another hideous evil evil bad guy). Had W been president at that time, I'll bet he would have refused to talk with the Soviets, and gone around making his interminable "evil-doer" speeches. Under this climate, Gorby would have been nudged aside by the hardliners, and the USSR would have carried on in isolation for another 15 - 20 years.

And what about China? Gorby wasn't insane, no - but when Nixon opened talks with the Chinese, Mao had just finished killing about 20 million people in the cultural revolution! I'd say that's pretty friggin insane! And yet, even then Nixon knew talking with China was better than isolating them.

"What about the NK people? Are they to continue under the Stalinist boot because you think your peace is sweeter than their lives?"

As I have just put forward, the best (and proven) way to help the NK people come out from under tyranny is to engage NK. What is YOUR plan to liberate them from the Stalinist boot? To continue to leave NK closed to the outside world, so that the regime can continue to have a full monopoly in portraying external reality? To continue to isolate NK so that the regime takes on more and more of a paranoid bunker mentality?

Just what has 6 years of Bush's policy accomplished here? Are the NK people any closer to escaping from the Stalinist boot now? Does NK have anything left to lose by continuing down the path to more nukes and greater destabilization? Even James Baker is over at the WH trying to get junior to understand that you have to talk with and engage NK.

NK is a failed state and will eventually collapse. Engagement is the best way to accelerate that inevitable process, and isolation is a sure way to prolong it.

As I have just put forward, the best (and proven) way to help the NK people come out from under tyranny is to engage NK.

AT, as Mark responded before: there's nothing to engage on...he has nothing we want or need.

We had much to gain, politically and economically when we engaged both the Chinese and the Soviets. No such brass ring is waiting for a compromise with NK. Exactly how would you engage them? Engaging them as the Clinton Administration did is largely what led to the present problems.

“you seem to think the Soviets looked at American plans for an unworking and unworkable star wars system and said to themselves, "Oh nooo, we better just collapse right now!" lol! “

Interesting, then why did the Soviets spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to prevent it?

Years later, a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there. (Investors’ Business Daily)

Do you mean like Reagan did at Reykjavik?

Engage the North Koreans? You mean like the six-party talks that the NK’s walked out on? The six party talks brokered by the Bush Administration which includes all the major players instead of a unilateral-cowboy approach Bill Clinton took? The same negotioations that the UN and the other members of the negotiations have been trying to get NK back to? Those discussions?

The Unprincipled Hypocrats

Banal Existence -

"Interesting, then why did the Soviets spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to prevent it [SDI]?"

Um, they didn't. Lets take a look at the 1994 National Intelligence Estimate that serves as the most authoritative post-mortem on the Soviet Union (just slightly more credible than IBD!):

Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense.

Certainly, the Soviet military were concerned with SDI. But to say SDI was the foremost factor leading to the downfall of the Soviet Union? Please.

The USSR had become a teetering mess of internal inconsistencies that could no longer survive in the light of day. Increasingly, Soviet citizenry came to know that The Emperor had no clothes through prolonged and unflattering comparisons with the west. As communications technology advanced, the less the Soviet leadership could hide from its people what was happening in the outside world. Eventually, even the leadership itself no longer truly believed in the Soviet system, culminating in Gorby's ascent to power.

Many conditions conspired together to lead to the fall of the Soviet Union: the glaring inconsistencies of a system so obviously less capable of providing a decent life, the grueling conflict in Afghanistan, and yes, the longstanding weight of military expenditures. But these expenditures were the result of decades of US pressures. It is patently false to say that the USSR came under significantly greater pressure from military expenditure during the 80's than it did under previous US presidents.

"Do you mean like Reagan did at Reykjavik?"

Yes, Reagan started his presidency playing the "negotiations are for pansys" tough guy that so obviously gets you emotionally juvenile types all excited. And of course, he had plenty of advisors with a vested political and monetary interest in seeing the Cold War threat continue forever. Luckily, Reagan was his own man, and was someone capable of modifying his simpleton's "good vs evil" outlook. It was Gorby who made the overtures, but to his eternal great credit it was Reagan who listened, his bright idealism cutting through the screen of ideologues, fanatics, careerist cold-warriors, and assorted other sordid desperados who have unfortunately been rehabilitated in W's administration. A lesser individual (like W) would have succumbed to the easy siren call of a crusade of good vs evil. Had W been president, we might still be fighting the Cold War today.

For all practical purposes, the Cold War ended at the two summits at Reykyavik ('86) and Washington ('87).

(woops, forgot the blockquote...)

Um, they didn't. Lets take a look at the 1994 National Intelligence Estimate that serves as the most authoritative post-mortem on the Soviet Union (just slightly more credible than IBD!):

"Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense."

The USSR had become a teetering mess of internal inconsistencies that could no longer survive in the light of day.

AT, you mean sort of like the modern day Democrat Party?

Retired Spook -

I have to admit, your post actually made me chuckle :)

peace

Gee, more historic revisionism, and what I said I didn’t men, what a surprise;

“Certainly, the Soviet military were concerned with SDI.” A bit inconsistent with “ or Soviets looked at American plans for an unworking (sic)and unworkable star wars system and said to themselves, "Oh nooo, we better just collapse right now”

Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Were they “concerned” or were they laughing, much as we are laughing at your absurd contention?

Your statement doesn’t attribute the author; it references the CIA but wasn’t written by CIA analysts, it was written by Jeffrey T. Richelson, a professor of Political Science and an advisor on China. The only true part of the statement was that Soviet spending was roughly consistent in Rubles. This is the only part of the actual CIA Report with which you agree, I’m afraid if you actually read the report yourself, you’d find that your simple world view is greatly flawed. (The Soviet Estimate: U.S. Analysis of the Soviet Union, 1947-1991)

The Soviet economy had begun the plunge before the Reagan administration, the amount spent on military buildup, although constant in Rubles was ever increasing against the GNP of the Nation; 1/3 of the GNP was spent on capital investments (military) in 1980. By 1985 it was ½ accelerating the bankruptcy. At a time when the Soviet Union was attempting to keep Eastern Europe under its control and military adventures in Afghanistan and elsewhere, any expenditures in defense of Star Wars accelerated bankruptcy and collapse.

“ Reagan started his presidency playing the "negotiations are for pansys (sic)" tough guy …” He started his presidency in 1986? Obviously you’ve cut and pasted your way through an argument without thinking this through.

Banal -

"The Soviet economy had begun the plunge before the Reagan administration, the amount spent on military buildup, although constant in Rubles was ever increasing against the GNP of the Nation; 1/3 of the GNP was spent on capital investments (military) in 1980. By 1985 it was ½ accelerating the bankruptcy."

hmmm. From the same article quoted above (no, it wasn't written by "Jeffery T Richelson", whoever that is):

CIA estimates show that Soviet defense spending remained relatively constant as a proportion of the Soviet gross national product during the 1980s, including Gorbachev's first four years in office.

So no, your argument about relative to GDP vs absolute rubles doesn't hold water. And yes, the Soviets both laughed at the space-based SDI system as was proposed by Reagan in the 80's, but also were concerned about future American developments in this area (especially since the Soviets had an inferiority complex vis-a-vis American technological capabilities relative to their own).

I just can't believe you think SDI caused the collapse of the Soviet Union - that is a ridiculous exaggeration! The Cold War came to an end despite the Carter-Reagan build up, not because of it (or at least, not foremost because of it).

In any case, my point here was not to disparage Reagan. Quite the contrary - I was giving Reagan kudos. In doing so, I was favorably constrasting Reagan to the light-weight air-head that currently occupies the oval office.

Banal - what do you think would have happened (god forbid) had W been president during the 1980's? And had Reagan been president now, how do you think he would have handled NK? These are useful things to think about...

In any case, W is a complete failure.

"In any case, W is a complete failure."

AaronTime...a quote for you from 1864...you sound a lot like the man from Wisconsin

Of course the rankest abuse came from the copperheads, among whom none was more inventive in his vituperation than a Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy. Lincoln, he wrote, was "but the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism"—indeed a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero." As the election of 1864 approached, Pomeroy editorialized: "The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."

Jesus Christ, Mark, not everyone who doesn't like us is the next Hitler who wants to "drink" our blood. In fact tell me what possible incentive N. Korea would have to start a war with us? And then tell me how the situation is better off now than it was under Clinton. This will be fun...

warrior -

yeah, Bush is just like Lincoln (and FDR, and Reagan, and Churchill, and yadda yadda)

That is a particularly queer alternate universe-of-one you occupy.

Aarontime, you obviously don't get it.

At the time of Lincoln, people were saying the exact same things about him that they say about Bush. It was only in hind sight that people finally said "LINCOLN WAS RIGHT".

It will be many years from now when people will say "BUSH WAS RIGHT"...the question is will it be too late.

Well, this is where we disagree warrior. I firmly think that with hindsight people will see just how horribly wrong Bush has been about a whole "heckava" lot. Bush will long be remembered as the most intellectually uninterested, morally challenged, misguided, incompetent, divisive and self deluded president in history. In short, the worst president... ever.

And don't even start with the "you are so full of hate" meme. I don't hate W. I can honestly say I would truly enjoy having the proverbial beer with the guy, preferably at a baseball game. And I can't think of someone in public office I'd have had more fun sharing a fraternity with in college than good old W. I mean, the guy is a guy's guy, no doubt. But he's obviously in way over his head, and he doesn't even have a clue. There's lots of people I'd find personally appealing, but I wouldn't necessarily want that person sitting in the oval office.

The true extent of the damage caused by a Bush WH whose every policy objective has been to perpetuate its own power at the expense of the truth and the good of America, will only become fully apparent in the years ahead.

There's a Proverb about Beer? How'd I miss that in Sunday school?