Luv the David Zucker ad! More please, faster!
:P

Republicans are a sad lot, not even a glimmer of what they were in 94 before they let the Evangilicals and Texas Neocons take over the party.

That is not an ad. It is satire. It actually very critical but humorous commentary of the Republican's use of attack ads. This ad proves Zucker is a Democrat who tried to pull one over on the Republicans. Too bad the Republican Party was not stupid enough to fall for it; but you apparently are.

Perhaps even better is the non photoshopped picture of Kim Jong and Madeline Albright toasting champagne with huge smiles after their grand diplomacy pact.

I like it. We have to counter the West Wing, west 60, the View, and a gazillion other TV shows. I mean as barbara Steisand herself said " F**K you if you can't take a joke."

I love it! One of the biggest problems with the RNC leadership is lack of guts to call a spade a spade. Besides, even if some view the ad as "over the top" -- so what. 90% of the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle is "over the top".

Yep, that is a good one! However, I'm waiting for the ad showing Rumsfeld sitting on the board of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, that sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea. In light of our current situation, do you think he should be forced to give back the money he made off of that deal and charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

You mean the two light-water reactors that were part of the Clinton deal in 1994?

“That the allies, in this case United States, Japan and South Korea, would build them two light-water reactors -- with appropriate safeguards to assure that the fuel could not be diverted from those reactors -- and that when the reactors reached a certain stage of completion, then North Korea would dismantle all of its facilities at Yongbyon.” William Perry, U.S. Sec'y of Defense (1994-1997); U.S. Special Envoy to North Korea (1999)

And without inspections, we all know how well that deal went!

The Board of Directors is an unpaid position, I’m sure Rummy will give back the $0 he made off of Clinton’s deal with North Korea.

I love the ad, but I can understand the relutance on the part of the GOP to air it.

The dems will surely use it to their advantage. How? I'm not sure. But they will find a way!

Remember Willie Horton. A true and honest ad, which was used by the democrats to define GHWB and the republicans as racists and haters, etc.

Republicans are fighting back .... finally.

Chris Shays had this to say today which was bloody brilliant.

WASHINGTON -- When the congressional page scandal broke last month, Democrats across the country saw a chance to lambaste Republican leadership - including Diane Farrell, who called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to step down.

But when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Rep. Christopher Shays hit back.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," said Shays, R-4th District, referring to the 1969 incident in which the Massachusetts Democrat drove a car that plunged into the water and a young campaign worker died.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.

The Unprincipled Hypocrats

Funny thing about what you just said/suggested Bane of Liberals' Existence is that it is extremely misleading (if not an outright lie).

The reality of the situation is that those reactors were under constant surveillance by the U.N. There were inspectors living near the plant, monitoring it. There were seals on the nuclear installations, and the Yongbyon facility actually wasn't being used.

But when President Bush came along, he decided that his policy should be completely anti-Clinton (which doesn't work). Bush finds out about NK's research into enriching uranium, and he goes ballistic (and rightfully so). Of course, how he addressed the problem, led us into the current situation we find ourselves in today.

Bush punishes NK for cheating. He breaks of the Agreed Framework agreement that Clinton signed, and cut off shipments for fuel oil.

NK responds by disabling the surveillance cameras, escorting UN weapons inspectors out of the country, and restarting their plutonium-based program, creating the plutonium-based weapon that nearly all analysts believe was detonated on Sunday.

Blame Clinton for not stopping Kim Jong Il's interest in researching uranium enrichment, but also give him credit for neutralizing one of the two possible ways NK could produce nuclear weapons.

The current situation we find ourselves in today is because of President Bush.

If you're going to make sweeping statements or insinuations like that, bring in all the facts to back it up.

Okay Surafel... Bill Clinton gave Kim Jong Il the technology he needed to build nukes, then gave him money to do it.

Also, are you suggesting that Kim Jung Il was living up to his obligations all that time? So now we're to believe the only reason North Korea started developing nuclear weapons was because the government of that country was mad at Bush for wanting to engage the Chinese, Japanese, Russians, South Koreans as well as the United States in talks with North Korea?

If you believe that North Korea wasn't stringing Clinton along, I have an ocean front beach house available at a reasonable price in North Dakota for sale.

What I don't understand is the Left's HUGE desire for multilateral action ONLY in Iraq (as they claim it's not right now) and then only want BILATERAL talks with North Korea instead of what Bush wants, multilateral action from the interested parties in the region...

Can't you see that that simply smacks of opportunism on the part of Democrats?

Can't you see that that simply smacks of opportunism on the part of Democrats?

Wawillyo, I really don't think they can see it. Their vision is completely blocked by BDS.

1996 ~ North Korea announces it will withhold from the IAEA any new nuclear information until the light-water reactors are finished and operating, a period of 10 years or more.

July 1998: The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that North Korea is refusing to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors full access to its nuclear sites.

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

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.

May 2001: North Korea threatens to pull out of a 1994 Agreed Framework, saying the United States has failed to live up to its obligations under the agreement.

March 2002: President Bush decides not to certify North Korea's compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework nuclear agreement before sending fuel oil to Pyongyang, indicating the United States does not have enough information to determine whether North Korea is complying with the agreement. He decides, however, to grant a waiver, allowing the fuel oil shipments to continue.

October 2002: The United States claims that North Korea acknowledged to a U.S. delegation headed by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly that North Korea has been secretly enriching uranium. The admission was prompted by U.S. intelligence indicating North Korea was trying to acquire large amounts of high-strength aluminum, which can be used in equipment to enrich uranium.

November 2002: KEDO decides to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea until North Korea takes steps to dismantle its nuclear program.

You’re either deliberately lying about the chronology of events, or you’re scary stupid; don’t ever call me a liar.

Bane - Surafel is like most libs - he can only see what he wants to see. Great chronology, too bad he won't be able to understand what the dates mean.

kjs,
You mean the part about the violations happening during the Clinton Administration? Or the part where Bush granted a waiver to continue allowing fuel shipments? Or maybe the part where NK backed out of the deal?

Nah! It's all GWB's fault.

I don't fault the Clinton Administration for trying to get a deal; I fault them for no verification. McCain called this one correctly when the deal was penned.

I keep saying that the Republicans act like a bunch of "pinaitas who like getting beat up"...they DON'T know how to 'punch back' when they have taken everything that the Liberals have dished out over all these years. They NEED to get
into this fight to win....and do it, in ANY way necessary to do so. Do they think, that the Libs
will have ANY mercy on them in these elections? It is really a no brainer-the Dems will use any and all the bashing they can, and the GOP, better learn what it means to take off the gloves. This,
is going to be a dirty fight, and sometimes, you just have to forget about being a gentleman Mr. Bush, and pull out all the stops. They have been bashing you each and every day, and you just seem to take it, without punching back, at each and every attack. It doesn't make YOU, like them, it just makes it necessary to beat someone at their "own game"....I hope Cheney agrees.

Kahn,

You are so right in your post, when Streisand made her leftie bashing of President Bush, she is out there doing the same thing, others do to him on a daily basis. Buuuutttt, she told those who didn't like it, to 'shut the fu*k up, it's only a joke'...well, I say, this little number by Zucker for all intentions, is only a joke too. So why not run it, don't the Dems have a sense of humor,
just like Streisand accused the audience of?

I actually did understand the dates. Thanks for your concern though kjstrouble.

Your chronology is correct, bane...., but again it is misleading.

The October 2000 CIA report did speculate that North Korea had enough plutonium processed for one to two nuclear weapons. But that plutonium was separated prior to 1992 (i.e. before Clinton).

And in case there was any confusion, President Bush did stop the shipment of oil after it was discovered that North Korea was researching a uranium-based program.

Blame for the entire NK situation falls on the shoulders of both administrations.

The Clinton administration was not thorough in it's attempt to reign in NK, and it did not get NK to destroy its stockpile of plutonium. And I did not suggest, as wawilliyo says, that NK began building nukes again because it was mad that Bush wanted multilateral discussions. And Clinton should've been harder on NK to abide by the agreement.

But President Bush did not stop this crisis or nip it in the bud early on. He allowed it to grow as well. My point is that the plutonium program began again under Bush's watch, as a result of Bush's actions (for good or for bad) and so this particular incident is his fault.

BTW: The argument "Why do liberals want bilateral talks with NK but wanted multilateralism with Iraq?" is simplistic, to say the least. The situation with Iraq and North Korea are completely different. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that there should be one method for solving all problems. But this is not the case. In the case of Iraq, multilateralism should have been employed. In the case of North Korea, bilateral discussions are important.

North Korea does not want to be attacked. President Bush has said in public, the U.S. does not seek military actions against it. He obviously speaks directly to NK's concerns when he does so. But these public comments may not be enough. We'll see where it goes from here...

Your argument started circular, and then you got into denying what you wrote, then proudly re-proclaiming it. Pick a story and stick with it, okay?

“ … how he addressed the problem, led us into the current situation we find ourselves in today.” No, the fact that the US found, under the Bush Administration that the Clinton deal was flawed, simple-minded in its trusting without verification and dangerous lays the blame squarely on Albright, Carter and Clinton.

NK’s nuclear program continued during the 1990’s; it did not stop, according to the CIA, and the Koreans themselves. “March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report allegedly claims that North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques.” Two years before the Bush Administration.

How does this square with your statement that “Bush punishes NK for cheating ... and cut off shipments for fuel oil. “ and “ NK responds by … re(s)tarting their plutonium-based program, And ” President Bush did stop the shipment of oil after it was discovered that North Korea was researching a uranium-based program”

Which is it? Did Bush stop the oil shipments because the NK’s were caught enriching plutonium, or NK’s started enriching plutonium because Bush stopped the shipments? They took the money, the bribes and thumbed their noses at the US. It would be impossible to reconstitute a nuclear program in 2002 and have a viable weapon as they announced in 2003. Your premise is absurd.

The players in this are South Korea, and Japan on the side of the West, North Korea, Russia, and China on the east, each has an economic interest and safety concerns. The Japanese and the South Koreans had to abide by the Clinton deal even though they were not party to the talks. The interests of those in the region must be protected.

The NK’s want bi-lateral talks to keep the regional interests out of the conversation; they want concession (bribes) like they received before because the US capitulated to every demand. Japan and South Korea will not allow that this time.

I think you're confusing a few things here.

I agree that President Clinton should've been tougher when it came to a uranium-based nuclear program. If the bomb detonated last week was a uranium-based nuclear weapon, I would not be arguing what I'm arguing right now.

The problem is that there is nearly unanimous agreement among analysts that the bomb detonated was a plutonium-based bomb. As a result of President Bush's decisions, North Korea restarted its plutonium based program.

As for your "Which is it?" question, the cheating I was referring to was the NK's secret research of a uranium-based program. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough regarding that. So to clear things up: NK researches uranium based program. Bush responds by cutting fuel oil. NK responds by restarting its plutonium based program. (This is what I have argued since the beginning, although I may have done so haphazardly.)

As for the speed with which they restarted their nuclear program, as I stated earlier, North Korea already had enough plutonium for one-two nuclear weapons. It is also apparent that they had at least one rudimentary nuclear weapon prior to 1993. If the knowledge was there to create a nuclear weapon prior to 1993, and NK had enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon already (which had been stored and was under surveillance), I don't think it is too absurd to think that they could quickly produce at least one small nuclear weapon. They had the material, they had the knowledge. And seeing as how by June of 2003 they had already reprocessed the 8,000 fuel rods that had been previously stored (to make even more weapons), they obviously had the capability of restoring their nuclear program relatively quickly.

As for your thoughts on bi-lateral talks, if you think the U.S. can get out of this situation without making concessions, then:
1. I am greatly underestimating the diplomatic skills of the Bush administration, or
2. You don't understand what diplomacy is.
Unless we go to war with NK or the government collapses, the only way to resolve this situation is through diplomacy, which means you give some to get some. We could also sit tight and see how effective sanctions are (in causing the govt to collapse), if you're willing to take that chance.

P.S. "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."

You can say Clinton was duped, or you can say that North Korea did a good job covering things up. It's all subjective really.

The of course, you could say that well if Clinton had tightened his grip on NK, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

And then I could say that if Bush tightened his grip, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

I guess everyone is too blame. We all win! (or lose depending on how you like to look at things)