Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm

• Bye..Bye..Scooter Enjoy Your Time in the Federal Pen - gt
  • From the way Fitzgerald spoke in the press conference...sm - Democrat
  • You really devalue yourself.... - SM
    • It's bittersweet...sm - Democrat
    • He is *innocent* but is up to his eyeballs in lies and deciet...sm - Democrat
      • He is "innocent until - he fell on his sword
        • If you were accused of something, would you want the same? - Remember the golden rule. nm
        • Your choice, but it doesn't mean you're right (nm) - Rep
      • On the other hand.... - SM
        • Democrats/Liberals - Proud conservative
          • Iraq did not attack America, as much as you want to lump it all in one pot - they didn't...sm - Democrat
            • Iraq - Proud Conservative
              • I don't think anyone is less or more deserving, sm - Democrat
                • That's start of the war in *2003* nm - Democrat
            • Okay, as long as....SM - wordwizard
              • I remember when *intelligence* actually meant knowledge...sm - Democrat
                • Agree with you 100%, Democrat! - see msg - Starcat
                • Reply - SM
            • Iraq.... - SM
        • Much sleep is to be lost over this...our soldiers are losing their sleep...so - Democrat
        • Perhaps we can make a - distinction between - sm - Starcat
          • I do. nm - Democrat
          • Wow, you are amazing... - SM
            • Why thank you, I think you - are too! sm - Starcat
              • I have not defended anybody, but since nobody knows the facts,including you, - I reserve judgment. It's the American way.nm
        • Clinton wasn't killing innocent people. NM - AJ
          • One could argue that. - nm
            • Yes, one could. Is that an invitation? nm - AJ
              • The right did not have the same venom for Saddam when Clinton was in office...sm - Democrat
              • Do a little research on... - See msg
                • Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm - Democrat
                  • You said it all in one sentence... - SM
                    • I have read the quotes, so I hear what you're saying...sm - Democrat
      • That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm - Democrat
    • I'm sure you defended - Pres. Clinton...sm-- Starcat
      • It may have started with sexual escapes. It ended with Perjury to a grand jury. - Myra
        • No, it started with a real - estate deal, but -- sm -- Starcat
          • The Clintons had more scandals than fleas on a dog. - NM
            • Here are some the conservatives forgot to add to his list...sm - Democrat
      • You're wrong... - SM
        • I certainly didn't expect - you to say I was right, but - sm - Starcat
      • Getting ready for all the excuses that cronyism attaches to their colleagues. It's coming soon, - AJ
        • Yes, AJ, don't forget the - always popular--sm- Starcat
          • That's the problem, they can't attack Fitzgerald...sm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I didn't say I was pro N. Korea.  You obviously need to hone your psychic skills.  What I am saying is that yes, I am anti nukes.  I am also anti "let's jes kill 'em all" mentality that we've had to put up with for the previous 8 years. 

Another thing you might want to consider is that N. Korea is not completely without allies.  Unless we're willing to catch one of those nukes, I would think it best if we didn't start playing hot pototoe with them. 

I was surfing a bit this morning and found this news article from N. Korea. I doubt things will cool off for a long time, if ever. The article headlines state: "Lee Myung-Bak's Group Military Provocations Blasted. From there, it calls him a puppet war monger and states how Myung-Bak outbursts "over the non-existant provocation (my emphasis) by the North."

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01

President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.

Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.

The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.

In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.

At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.

You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.

Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.

The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.

But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.

Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.

The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.

Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.

But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.

The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.

Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.

This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.

Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.

The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new

A little bit of history on North Korea and the dilemma. Read the rest of the article from the link below.

"So it's another step backwards again with North Korea.

In defiance of a Security Council resolution (1718) passed after its first nuclear test in 2006, it has now announced a second. It has also implied that it has solved some at least of the problems it encountered in the first.

The actual technical achievement remains to be examined. But the test itself represents a continued belligerency whose destination is unknown. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066719.stm

He's threatening nuclear missles now if he doesn't get the apology

Instead of all the governments playing patty cake with these radical leaders, we should just take them out once and for all.

While O is trying to reduce our defense abilities, these leaders are building up theirs. When is the world (including our country) going to realize you can't deal with leaders like this in a rational manner? "Speak softly but carry a big stick" is the motto we should be following.

Yeah!!!.  Now I just worry about the 2 girls they are trying over there.

updated 3:42 p.m. ET, Fri., June 12, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea - The U.N. Security Council on Friday punished North Korea for its second nuclear test, imposing tough new sanctions, expanding an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas, with the goal of derailing the isolated nation's nuclear and missile programs.

In a sign of growing global anger at Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of the council, the North's closest allies Russia and China joined Western powers and nations from every region in unanimously approving the sanctions resolution.

The resolution seeks to deprive North Korea of financing and material for its weapons program and bans the country's lucrative arms exports, especially missiles. It does not ban normal trade, but does call on international financial institutions not to provide the North with grants, aid or loans except for humanitarian, development and denuclearization programs. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo said the resolution provides "a strong and united international response" to North Korea's test in defiance of a ban imposed after its first underground atomic blast in October 2006.

"The message of this resolution is clear: North Korea's behavior is unacceptable to the international community and the international community is determined to respond," DiCarlo said. "North Korea should return without conditions to a process of peaceful dialogue."

Push for six-party talks
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said the nuclear test had affected regional peace and security. He strongly urged Pyongyang to promote the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and return quickly to Beijing-hosted six-party talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear program.

He said the resolution demonstrates the international community's "firm opposition" to the atomic blast, "but also sends a positive signal" by showing the council's determination to resolve the issue "peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."

North Korea signaled strong opposition to new sanctions before the vote, but its diplomats were nowhere to be seen on Friday.

That was in stark contrast to the vote in October 2006 when the North Korean ambassador immediately rejected the first sanctions resolution, accused council members of "gangster-like" action, and walked out of the council chamber.

'Merciless offensive'
North Korea reiterated Monday in its main newspaper that the country will consider any sanctions a declaration of war and will respond with "due corresponding self-defense measures." On Tuesday, the North said it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked.

The provision most likely to anger the North Koreans calls on countries to inspect all suspect cargo heading to or from North Korea — and to stop ships carrying suspect material if the country whose flag the vessel is flying gives approval.

The White House said it was prepared to confront ships believed to be carrying contraband materials to North Korea but will not try to forcibly board them.

If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said U.S. officials would seek permission to board and inspect ships believed to be carrying contraband to North Korea. Such ships would be directed to a nearby port for inspection if they could not be boarded at sea, she told reporters at the White House.

Rice said the U.S. would not be surprised if North Korea reacted to the sanctions with "further provocation."

"There's reason to believe they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this," she said. But she said she expects the sanctions to have significant impact on North Korea's financing of its weapons and missile systems.

Nuclear tests
The United States and many other nations, including China and Russia, have condemned Pyongyang for its underground nuclear test on May 25 and a series of ground-to-air missile test firings.

The resolution condemns "in the strongest terms" the North's May 25 nuclear test "in violation and flagrant disregard" of the 2006 sanctions resolution.

It demands a halt to any further nuclear tests or missile launches and reiterates the council's demand that the North abandon all nuclear weapons, return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, allow U.N. nuclear inspections, and rejoin six-party talks.

The 2006 resolution imposed an arms embargo on heavy weapons, a ban on material that could be used in missiles or weapons of mass destruction and a ban on luxury goods favored by North Korea's ruling elite. It also ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs.

I think that's part of the problem. They have "unification" parties all over the north. The people in the north don't get any outside news except what NK wants them to have. At least that's my take on it.  I hope their missles do fizzle out. I'm sure the nitwit will definitely push it to the brink.

As he states (and did we REALLY start the Korean War?):

"This is another foul product of the U.S.-led international oppression to disarm the DPRK and to suffocate it economically for forcing the Korean people to give up their idea and system.

If the U.S. imperialists start another war, ignorant of the ignominious defeat they had sustained in the past Korean war, the army and people of Korea will determinedly answer "sanctions" with retaliation and "confrontation" with all-out confrontation, the counter-measure based on the Songun idea, wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all and achieve the cause of national reunification without fail."

This guy is really nuts! Just because he has 1M foot soldiers, he thinks he can do what he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528057,00.html

xx

Here is yet another expert criticizing Bush's policies.  How can ALL of these people be wrong?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-21T064029Z_01_N21187502_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy

June 21, 2006

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former U.S. diplomat who was deeply involved in North Korea policy said the Bush administration's approach toward the isolated communist state has been a failure that left Pyongyang to pursue its nuclear and missile programs.

In a rare public attack on the administration by a foreign service officer, retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs David Straub also questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision-making on the issue. A spokesman for Rice was not immediately available for comment.

One fundamental failure of Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that all options were the table, a phrase underscoring U.S. intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.

Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table but you don't have to talk about it all the time, Straub said.

Every time we said 'all options are on the table' gratuitously, we made the situation with our South Korean ally worse and made the prospect of coordination with South Korea to resolve the North Korean problem diplomatically that much more remote, he said.

Straub was head of the Korean office from 2002-2004 and was part of a team that negotiated with the North during former Secretary of State Colin Powell's tenure.

Several former administration political appointees have faulted President George W. Bush's policies after leaving office but it is rare for a foreign service officer to do so.

DIPLOMATIC FAILURE

Straub spoke in Washington at a meeting of the Korea Club, which groups former officials, scholars and journalists interested in the Korean peninsula.

His remarks came as six-country negotiations on ending North Korea's nuclear program are at a stalemate and as Pyongyang fans tensions again with preparations for a possible long-range missile test.

Straub said Washington was not primarily responsible for the failure to stop the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and expressed skepticism Pyongyang would abandon its growing capability even if the United States made major concessions.

But he said the only viable U.S. approach is serious negotiations, the appointment of a high-level envoy and a willingness to engage in bilateral as well as multilateral talks, something the Bush administration has eschewed.

Straub said North Korea never seemed a priority for Bush and he could not understand why the National Security Council under Rice, who is often credited with energizing diplomacy at the State Department, repeatedly rejected Powell's diplomatic proposals.

Powell was desperate to try to have some real diplomatic effort going (with Pyongyang). Maybe she did something (to assist that) for four years while he was in office, but if she did no one ever told me, Straub said.

As for Bush, Straub wondered how much attention is he able to pay to it (North Korea). How much does he know?

Straub noted that opinion polls show many South Koreans consider America a bigger problem than North Korea. I can't think of a better definition of diplomatic failure, he said

He expressed confidence Powell would have pursued bilateral talks with Pyongyang in 2002-2003 during a crisis created by U.S. discovery of the North's clandestine program for enriching weapons-grade uranium.

But he said the administration did not want real give and take so the stalemate in six-country talks between the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia was predictable, he said.

Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying U.S. views on issues papered over in the agreement.

The U.S. statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement.

We haven't even begun to pay the piper - We can't afford it!

If you think it sounds extreme, it is.  But if you do your own research, you'll hear his own words saying he'll literally bankrupt the coal industry.  The MSM somehow "managed" to forget about this way back from January 2008!   He said our electricity bills will "skyrocket!"  This is disturbing!  Right or left, the media has no right to pull this crap.  They aren't even shy about their lovefest over this guy.  This isn't journalism.  There's a big difference between news reporters and commentators.

Our utility rates are already high enough.  Why would anyone want to pay even one dime more?  Someone please tell me their desire to do so.  Google NE coal miners, etc., and you should find more info.

Good luck to you. 

I like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Hate snow, afraid of volcanoes, and can't take heat anymore. Hubby has been wanting to move to Canada for years. He likes snow and mountains.

I also like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia. They're cold but I like the sea.

Maybe I can find an nice island halfway between the extremes I posted? Any suggestions? LOL

We watched C-span so that we could be assured nothing would be cut out.  Then we went to MSNBC to see their comments and then FOX to hear their comments.  Sure enough MSNBC was filled with a bunch of sour grapes.  What were they saying about her speech?  Nothing.  They were just upset because she called the media on what they've been reporting about her and they didn't like it.  They want to keep bashing and putting her down and have nothing said back to them.  They are so biased it makes me sick.

This is my likes & dislikes about Sarah Palin.  I like that she is not from Washington.  I like that she has been governor of the state, has passed laws, has made Alaska a better state that works for the people.  I like that she got rid of all the wasteful things (fancy jet, personal chef, chauffer).  I like that she can stand tough when she needs to.  She's knows how to get things done and she's not afraid to go up against the "big boys".  I like that she firmly believes in the 2nd ammendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms, and I like the fact that she knows how to use arms.  I like that she cares about America more than she cares about herself.  I like that her husband owns a business and she has helped him work his commercial fishing business.  So I know she is not for more taxes.  I like that she took from the big oil companies and gave the money rightfully back to the people who deserved it (the Alaskan citizens).  I like that she is a mother, has kids in school, has been to the PTA. That means she is aware of the education system and I like that she got involved to make the schools a better place for all kids.  I like the fact that she and her husband decided to have a child knowing he would have down's syndrome and I like the fact that she doesn't wear it on her sleeve and when she talked about her baby tonight she said our newest addition, a beautiful baby boy (not a beautiful Down's syndrome baby).  I like the fact that her daughter is pregnant.  To me it shows she is as real of a person and her family is the same as most all other Americans and facing the same thing all other americans are.  I like the fact that she was not born into a wealthy family, she worked hard to get where she is at.  I like the fact that for all the snips and nasty comments the democrats said against her and John McCain last week she can dish it right back (and with facts! - which by the way is all the liberal media focused on tonight (how much she picked on the other side)).  I like the fact that I know she and her husband sit down at night after their kids go to bed and they talk about real issues (his business, their kids schooling, etc etc).  I think she is a wonderful, hard working person.  Very knowlegeable about issues (has to be to be a governor).  I like the fact that she does have more experience than Obama does, which because he is running for President he should have more experience then someone running for VP.  Tonight after her speech DH & I both said we need to move to Alaska and have someone like her as our governor.

What I don't like...maybe she's a little too "religious" for me and I've heard that she wants to teach creationalism in schools.  BUT (I wanted to make sure I put that in big letters...but) I can't confirm that and I'm not sure if that is a rumor put out by the liberals, so I really can't say I don't like that about her because I don't know if it's true.  Just keep religion out of politics and I'm happy with that.

So far I can't see anything I dislike about her (which is a far cry from 3 days ago when I couldn't stand her because all I was listening to was MSNBC and CNN).  Now I'm researching and reading more about her accomplishments.

I think she's a wonderful person and will make a fine VP.  Also I do have to say I've been learning more about JM over the past couple days and I have a lot more confidence and respect for him as our next president.  I loved R. Guliani's speech and Mike Huckabee's and the Governor of Hawaii (forget her name).  They all gave fine speeches.

So that's my opion.  To the one just blabbing about how our taxes are going to be raised, blah, blah, blah.  It's all scare tactics.  When the democrats are in is always when people pay more in taxes.  Government grows, jobs go overseas, America becomes less secure, military gets cut way back  Remember NAFTA because of Democrat Billy who shipped jobs overseas and people lost good jobs and homes.  Then he turned around and created these "false" jobs where people had to take jobs paying 1/2 of what they were getting paid but because they paid them so low he could create more jobs giving a "false" impression that he created all these jobs (these people still had to go on food stamps).  Remember how your taxes were raised because of Democrat Billy who jumped my tax bracket from 21% to 37% and even then at the end of the year we had to pay an additional $2500 cos we didn't pay enough to support all of his programs.  Remember Kosovo, Somalia, etc.  Remember how Democrat Billy gutted the military which made our country less safe, hence the first attack on the world trade centers.  Remember how Democrat Billy had the chance to capture OBL but he didn't.  Remember the lies.  Remember how Democrat Hillary was trying to socialize health care.  Some people may think Bush is "one fry short of a happy meal" but at least our taxes went down, and we had job security and our military was built up and I once again had faith in the country,  Sure the country is not perfect.  Sure President Bush has made some real "dufus" decisions and mistakes, but it's nothing compared to the mess the country was in the last time the Democrats were in office.

That is why I'm voting for McCain/Palin.  I've got my fire resistant suit on. 

I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I usually call myself independent.  I march to my own drum.  I would have liked to have seen 2 different candidates than what we had.  I would have liked to see a true Christ-like man, humble and honest in his/her campaign...i.e. the "Straight Talk Express" which McCain claimed to have and didn't.

I simply voted AGAINST the man who bragged that he had voted "with the president over 90% of the time, more than even his Republican colleagues."  We certainly need change.  I know I haven't fared so well under Bush.  All is not lost for those who think Obama is a monster if he in fact turns out to be what he's been accused of being. .  Remember Richard Nixon?