NK wants to take back South Korea

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."

• Getting closer to July 4. Here's what NK groups are saying - Backwards typist
  • Can someone please explain to me - Trigger Happy
    • NK wants to take back South Korea - Backwards typist

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

If all you intelligent people from other areas think the South is so rotten then why are you all flocking here?  If the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, and the left coast are full of enlightened tolerant individuals then why come to the ignorant, racist backwater South?

Truth is, you've screwed up your own homeplaces with such nit picky liberal rules and extreme taxation it's unbearable, but you'd never admit that. 

BTW, 3/4 of the my neighbors are black, and they are the best neighbors I've ever had!  We've got each other's backs 

The song doesn't pertain to racism and violence it talks about pride in where you come from, and telling people where to get off when they judge you on blantantly ignorant generalizations.

Lastly, I'm not a racist, and I'm not violent, and Sweet Home Alabama is one of the greatest rock songs ever, period!   Deal with it!

They don't want to buy any more of our debt, as our $ is almost worthless.  They've been buying up homes in southern CA big-time.  They already know that this most liberal "plan" will make the US self-destruct.

Those who voted for this man and refused to listen to many of us who said h'ed do this, don't cry to me.  This is merely the beginning.

Remember in the last couple of months when McCain announced, "Today, we are all Georgians"?

I think Putin is taking a "wait and see" approach to the new USA President.  Bush has certainly heated up the "Cold War" during his eight years in office.  While there is not much reason to trust Putin, there's even less reason for Putin to trust the USA.

We can't forget the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and, more importantly, the sequence of events related to that conflict.  I would encourage anyone who has forgotten that Georgia was the aggressor (with our help) to click on the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia

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.

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. 

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 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

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

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.

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

You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!

All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight.  You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around.  For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.

Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.*  Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.)

ignoring them, Democrat.

Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people.  They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.

Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response.  Not one.

They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.

Not flip-flops by one person...but several:

1. 

2. 

Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations

Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...

Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.

REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.

PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all.

They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?

 

3. 

Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol

« H E » John Kuethe :: email link

Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections.  She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.  

She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel.  She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025. 

This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections.  In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access.  Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109^th Congress - 1^st Session.

4. 

Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration

« H E » John Kuethe :: email link

Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off.  Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps. 

In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:

I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.

Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story 

She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”.  In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
 

This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal.  She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling.  Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband. 

 

5.  Reid Ticket Flip-Flop

The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.

The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.

In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.

The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.

According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.

 

6.  Pelosi - Murtha

Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.

(SNIP)

Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.

Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.

Murtha on Homeland Security:

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!

Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.

A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.

What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)

And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.

This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.

We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.

Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.

Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.

Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated

On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.

I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.

During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.

 

7. 

Pelosi Flip-Flops on Porter Goss

( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added. 8. Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer July 28, 2005 (CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters. In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views. Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important. Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come. The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights. Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers. Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush. Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases. We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967. Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned. 9.   noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times: On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason. “In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ” “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.” Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops. Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable. “We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said. The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism. Indeed. And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes: Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.” The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected. “We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States. […] When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.” […] Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons. But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.” Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07: President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region. Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself. “We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.” Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions. I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today: They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous. 10.  Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ A little light listening and watching. 11.  The 16 August 2005 Washington Times has an editorial that digs deeper into two prominent Democrats with aspirations for 2008: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New Arkansas). In Border-control Democrats and President Bush the editors summarize many of the sneaky backtracks and politicking that these two have employed on this crucial national security and economic issue. The opening paragraph alone summarizes the piece perfectly: Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon. The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.) Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson: In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now. This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports. Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers. As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe: Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.

12.  Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop

Thursday, June 15, 2006

I agree.  It would be very traumatizing to the child to be hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies.  The child's needs come before her political ambition.

Why aren't YOU listening?  If I hear any more about Joe the non-plumber, I'm going to puke.  That was a Republican plant if ever I saw one.  "Joe" got the answer he was programmed to get and they took it and ran with it.  If you are listening, Obama is NOT proposing to tax people who's GROSS income is $250,000!!!

I do agree with you.  I have long been in favor of a flat rate tax.  No deductions, no exceptions.  If you make a dollar you owe a dime or whatever.  That will NEVER fly because the politicians are ALL about protecting the wealthy.  AND that includes McCain AND Obama.