There were no nuclear tests during the Clinton term and these did not appear to be any Plutonium production by North Korea. Both of these things took place during the past 5 years. All the tough talk by Bush about NO Nukes in North Korea. The dummy in the White House Invades a country with no nuclear weapons and ignores the two countries that are most likely (North Korea and Iran) to either have them or close to having them. Great work George!!!!!!!

The dummy in the White House Invades a country with no nuclear weapons and ignores the two countries that are most likely (North Korea and Iran) to either have them or close to having them. Great work George!!!!!!!

So, would you have had us invade the countries that MIGHT have had nukes, and have had them POSSIBLY nuke us. Hmmm? Would you really risk that? What if he had invaded/taken care of those counries, would he still be at fault?


What would YOU have done?

Don't pay attention to this article. I wrote it after I had some drinks with some friends. Hell I can't even remember my password so I'm writing in annonimus, look at me, I still can't spell right. Anyways, please do me the favor and ignore any of my comments. I ran out of pills this morning and can not be responsible for my behaviour online. Thanks and sorry again.

OMG. LOL That is GREAT. Hahahahahaa.

OMG. LOL That is GREAT. Hahahahahaa.

I wonder if you would still think it's funny when I tell you that it was me who wrote that? I went in as annonymous and wrote it just for fun. Guess I didn't get his attention, or he just didn't notice it.

I wonder if you would still think it's funny when I tell you that it was me who wrote that? I went in as annonymous and wrote it just for fun. Guess I didn't get his attention, or he just didn't notice it.

Charles, you have your moments. If that WAS you, you done good.

What I said is how stupid was it to risk our troops and spend 1/2 Trillion dollars attacking a country that had no nuclear weapons and following an ineffective policy toward two countries that posed a REAL danger. If Bush had been president on December 7, 1941 he would have declared war on Poland or China.

Yes I saw your lame post trying to make it appear that it was from me. It was not worth a response. There is not one post so far that has shown that the original issue I raised in this Blog is not true. You could not document ONE policy of the Bush Administration that has achieved the objective and benefited the American People.

Here is what has taken place since January 2001:


Turning a balanced budget to as high as a $600 Billion per year deficit is not positive.

Taking the National Debt from $5.7 Trillion to $8.5Trillion and heading toward $10 Trillion by the end of the Bush Term is a disaster.

The continued increase in the trade deficit after expanding a policy that did not work for 8 years under Clinton is not good for the U.S.

There are a lot of children being left behind by the Bush Education policies.

We are MORE not less dependent on foreign oil and the cost to heat our homes and drive our cars is much higher then when Bush took over which hurts MOST Americans.

The Border is not protected and we still are not inspecting over 90% of the containers coming into our ports.

The 16 Intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq War; the central focus of the Bush security policy, is making us LESS not MORE safe.

Over 2,700 Lives and 20,000 injuries plus ½ Trillion dollars spent in Iraq with the violence getting worse EVERY DAY.

Afghanistan is returning to the same danger as just before 9/11 and the man responsible for 9/11 is free.

The great danger of North Korea and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is worse then ever despite the Tough talk by our President.

There is more discord in America then when Bush took office who pledged to reduce that discord.

The World opinion of our President and the U S in general is at an ALL TIME LOW.

The Average Worker has LESS money to spend after inflation then in 2001.

The continued outsourcing of our jobs.

An increase of about 2 Million Americans without health care since Jan 2001.

The way Bush and the Fed dealt with Katrina and the lack of rebuilding the Gulf is clear.

Charles, you have your moments. If that WAS you, you done good.

Well thank you. I try my best.

There is not one post so far that has shown that the original issue I raised in this Blog is not true.

There is a reason for that. You never provided any factual, unbiased evidence. That's your problem. You can't site yourself as the source when none of us trust you.

For a moment I though I might get a real dialogue out of you. I was wrong. I would have some respect for you if you did anything more than complain.

Anyone here want to join in a google bomb for the Col?

There is more discord in America then when Bush took office who pledged to reduce that discord.

First thing first, that isn't bush's fault only. In fact, it's politics, and those who fall in line with it. (I.e. those who do not think for themselves.)

What I said is how stupid was it to risk our troops and spend 1/2 Trillion dollars attacking a country that had no nuclear weapons and following an ineffective policy toward two countries that posed a REAL danger. If Bush had been president on December 7, 1941 he would have declared war on Poland or China

You didn't answer my question CG.

The latest poll about what Americans think of the way Bush is handling the economy continue to show 60% do not approve of the way Bush is handling the economy.

Here you go again with the polls. Do you even listen to anything? Polls are not accurate and are media driven. Get that through your head.

Parated2k You are an ASS that does not warrent a response!

And yet, respond you did. ;~D

It's ok though, since you are almost universally wrong about everything, I figure I'm pretty safe.

Just John

You are WRONG. I sighted the opinion of an analyst with 30 years studying North Korea. In addition, there is logic that supports my Blog. Anyone that would argue that a dictator does not value the continuation of control over his country is just not sane. There is also no doubt that possessing a few nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent for any country to attempt an invasion that could result in unacceptable casualties on the invading force. Thus the Bush policy of preemptively attacking dictators to effect régime change would cause dictators to seek ways to prevent Bush or some other like minded president from attempting régime change. Nuclear weapons are the BEST solution for any dictator that wants to reduce the possibility of an Iraq style invasion in the future!

There is not one post so far that has shown that the original issue I raised in this Blog is not true.

OK then I will bend to your wishes.

The drive of North Korea and Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons is not to attack the United States but to prevent the United States or any other country from attacking them.

First of all you said Iraq did not have a nuclear program so get your stories straight. Second of all, the same reason they want weapons are the same reasons we have them, Russia has them and others want them, for self protection and the right to defend themselves. Your point here is useless cause everyone has the same reason for wanting nukes. What you really fail to point out is that people like Kim Yong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam do not value life, are always threatening other countries with death and destruction and are very dangerous people in control of entire countries. This is what you should be pointing out.

It is true that both North Korea and Iran were trying to acquire nuclear weapons long before Bush invaded Iraq.

The fact that you wrote this statement alone defeats your entire argument so anything else said after this is pointless. And to be more accurate, they were both searching before Bush became President.

However the preemptive invasion and willingness to affect regime change by force has increased the desire of these two countries to obtain a small supply of these weapons.

OK, where is the proof, evidence, anything that can back this opinion? Cause in the end this is all it really is. This is not Bush truth, this is Bush opinion. Truth: a fact that has been verified, something you have not done. they wanted these weapons before, they want it know and they will continue to want it even when Bush is gone.

There is no question, if Iran or North Korea are successful in acquiring these weapons, they are far safer from attack by the United States.

No question? Do you even hear yourself? attack by the United States? You make it sound as if we are going around attacking countries like Alexander the Great. Bush is far from being great and with our military spread thin and only a few years for him to go, I see no unilateral wars toward North Korea any time soon. Keep in mind though that the US is not the only country concerned about this problem. I'm not sure you or anyone on this planet would want to be in South Korea or Japan at this moment. Last thing they need is a rouge nuclear missile flying over their country.

Now we have North Korea conducting a nuclear test. What Next?

OK so we have North Korea conducting a nuclear test, and neither China, Japan or Russia tried to stop them. I'm with you so far. Now Iran is also trying to mess with nuclear power, what are China, Russia, France and the UN trying to do to stop them again? Oh yea, I forgot, we, The US, are the ones responsible for stopping Iran. But how can we do that when you don't want preemptive strikes, don't want us sending our soldiers into harms way, don't want to upset the Muslims, don't want us to go without the the support of the UN, don't want Bush in charge in the first place. Now maybe you can explain to me how we can stop Iran from continuing their search for nuclear power when you have our hands and legs tied up? Keep in mind that we have been talking to these people for months now and it has not been working, so don't try to give me that as a solution cause while we talk they research, while we talk some more, the begin to build, by the time we realize that talking is futile they will have their first nuclear test. Just look at North Korea for proof.

When we look at the direction our foreign policy is taking it is clear we are moving into a MORE not LESS dangerous time in history.

Let's see, we are trying to deal with a bunch of nut cases who want nothing less than the death of all Americans and Jews. While we're trying to stop them from acquiring WMD, they are getting mad at us and are trying other means to do us harm. With me so far? Our only way to be safe from these nut cases is by facing them, right? Every heard of the saying "it will get worse before it gets better"? You didn't really think Iran, North Korea, Iraq, etc, would just have said "OK, OK, we give up, we will not pursue nuclear tech and we will live in peace with the rest of the world" did you? Just look at the reaction of the American people on 9/11; we all had sadness, confusion, but more than anything, anger. Why? Because they messed with us. See my point? It is more dangerous for everyone on this planet, not because Bush went to war in Iraq, but because Alqaeda declared war on us on 9/11.

It does not matter where you look. Relations with our traditional friends have been strained by our policy.

First of all they were our allies, not friends. Friends stick together. We were "friends with France, who was supplying Saddam with weapons illegally (don't forget the nice weapons cache found in the beginning of the invasion that clearly said France (and Germany)on them. They chose to side with the terrorist for financial reasons. Money was more important to them than making this world a better place to live. Remember, just like China has business relationships with North Korea, Germany and France had them with Iraq as well. They turned their backs on us when we needed them the most, this war in Iraq would have been less of a struggle had they joined and helped out from the beginning. They were never our friends, they were business partners and they felt our kind of financial business was not what they wanted.

The Middle-east is a disaster and the problems in the Americas is clearly evident.

You make it sound as if it all got bad in 2003. The Middle East has been a disaster for long before that and we have always had problems before, this is nothing new that we can't handle. We have survived worse and we are getting better even if you refuse to see it.

To give Bush and his Foreign Policy team a grade of a D- would be kind!

I wouldn't give him even a B, but this is not a unilateral situation. Bush is not and can not be responsible for the entire planet. We are not succeeding because our "friends" are more interested in the financial gains from places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. They would rather let then get nukes, as long as they continue to make money from them.

Hows that for taking on the issues you claim here? You continue to ignore the real threat and continue to attack the one that needs your help. Not once do you or will you point out the cruelty of the terrorist, their lack of respect for the rules of war (the same rules that are getting our men and women killed), the lack of respect for human life from Saddam and/or Kim Yong Il, the uselessness of the UN, the betrayal of some of our allies (not friends) for financial gains, the back tracking of those in the Democratic party who were in favor of the war in Iraq then cried we were tricked, the constant undermining of our President, etc. Never do you point out anything others do wrong, only Bush. You are not objective, you are not unbiased, you do not tell the truth cause you have no proof, facts or evidence to back anything you say. You simply provide opinions of people who's names can not be revealed, who have agendas against Bush, who are bias and non-objective; you provide poll after poll after poll that only you believe; you provide facts from Gov't sources but when these same sources are used to refute your claims you claim they are inaccurate and wrong.

What do you have to say now? Or copy/paste?

You are WRONG. I sighted the opinion of an analyst with 30 years studying North Korea.

You sighted the opinion of a ghost. The opinion of a person who you can't even prove exist cause his identity can not be revealed. God, do you even listen to yourself or do you put cotton balls in your ears and type with your eyes closed (would explain the many typos you make) to ignore what you yourself write?

In addition, there is logic that supports my Blog. Anyone that would argue that a dictator does not value the continuation of control over his country is just not sane.

You call this logic? You are not Kim Yong Il, you do not know the reasons for his lust for nukes. You have no proof or evidence to support this statement. You can not speak as if you have direct access to Kim Yong Il's brain and know exactly what he is thinking. Everyone, dictator or not, values their leadership position. That is no excuse to are yourself with nukes. Is Hugo Chaves actively seeking nukes? You would think so since he is on a role taunting the American President by calling him names and constantly bitching about him. Either than or he's the bravest idiot on this planet. If Iran wants nukes to protect themselves from us they would be doing in in secret. Otherwise we could take them out before they even began testing. You see how your logic is flawed?

Charles C


First of all you said Iraq did not have a nuclear program so get your stories straight. I typed Iraq. It should have been Iran. If you look at the Blog itself you will see that. You can not address the issue so you seize on a typo.