This Is My Life

It deflects attention to him. And yeah, people ARE buying that shit.

From:

jfargo.livejournal.com

I'm waiting for: "Nixon did it!"

From:

You know, thats one word that makes garbage spouting Republicans stutter.

The one that makes them stop in their tracks and change the conversation is "Watergate".

From:

meopta.livejournal.com

Depends on the age - the young uns think it's hype, IME.

From:

I don't stutter over Watergate. It was a bit before my time. However, as big a tool as Nixon was from a domestic angle, he apparently was pretty decent when it came to foreign policy.

At some point politicians will learn that it's not the crime that will get you, it's the cover-up.

From:

That could be because North Korea apparently admitted to violating the 1994 Agreed Framework and had a secret uranium-enrichment program all along, while the US sat back and relied on them honoring the framework. ;-)

From:

Diplomacy vs World Police

From:

Every time I hear "World Police," I think of the puppet movie. ;-)

Diplomacy worked really well post 1994 with NK, no? :-)

From:

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to be snarky, easier still to be defensive when the arguments are set up for you. I'd like to see a plan other than, "Find someone else to blame and QUICK!"

I'd like to see action with an outcome not leading to a reinstatement of the draft.

From:

Yes, hindsight is always 20/20, but that's how politicians operate. Reference politicians who say "if I knew then what I knew now, I would have voted against the war." A more meaningless statement could not be made.

I'm not sure that Bush was seeking out someone else to take the blame; he just wanted to make sure he wasn't unfairly saddled with all of the blame.

I don't think we have to worry about a reinstatement of a draft. It would never pass, and I have a feeling that the administration's position will be "hey, world, you didn't want us to act unilaterally in Iraq? Fine, we'll leave NK up to you."

A childish position to take, for certain. But at some point the world community needs to stop relying on the US to step in and do the dirty work for them. They need to get together, see a threat for what it is, and deal with it as a collective.

From:

I'm hoping Japan will step up to deal with NK. Doubtful China will have much to say, but they might show a Little concern since they're in range as well, friend or no.

I think rather than worrying about blame shifting, he should be working on an actionable plan. Instead of spin-doctoring and issuing meaningless statements like yesterday's piece of crap, he could work on doing something constructive. Anything.

NK wants US English teachers, send 'em. Instead of sanctions, why not try bribery? Yeah a lot of it relies on NK being honest for a change, but we could require Proof and inspection access in exchange for what they need.

It just seems like there's more talk than planning, or actual action. The things Bush said yesterday- he was literally talking out both sides of his mouth. Saying one thing, then another that negated what he just said.

It's terribly frustrating as a citizen, and probably terrifying for other countries wondering if he's going to attack as well. A politician needs to be trusted.

I'm sure someone's already kicking it around. Doesn't do much good to talk about it on LJ. Just venting.

Frankly- I'd much rather a president who was too concerned with blowjobs to bomb things. I want my president getting laid, dammit! By any and all means necessary ;D
There's just not enough emphasis or proof Bush is getting any regularly.

From:

Doubtful China will have much to say, but they might show a Little concern since they're in range as well, friend or no.

Especially when there are rumors that China is sending them materials. ;-)

Instead of sanctions, why not try bribery?

Because that would set a terrible precedent.

Yeah a lot of it relies on NK being honest for a change, but we could require Proof and inspection access in exchange for what they need.

I believe this was part of the proposed agreement that was presented to NK, and Kim gave it a big thumbs down. No inspections. No sanctions. Blink at me the wrong way, and I'll see it as an act of war.

Frankly- I'd much rather a president who was too concerned with blowjobs to bomb things.

Except for moments where the President bombed things to distract from the fact that he was getting blowjobs. ;-)

From:

We sent people materials who later used them against us. I don't think China's foolish enough not to consider them to still be a threat.

We've already done bribery, it Is a precedent.

He said Sanctions would be considered an act of war, and I can kinda see his point on this. I think he's insane, but I can see why he would consider this aggression. So why do it if he's nuclear capable?

Agreed- but I want to know my president is well-laid nonetheless.

From:

Because he too has been brainwashed by Rush and the rest of the right wing media (aka Faux News) that everything is President Clinton's fault. I agree with Bill Maher the other night who said that evidently Foley's antics have been going on for about 11 years - so it comes back to Clinton according to the junkie on the radio in Florida..... :-)

I like what Ethel Kennedy said the other day about Bill "When he was president everyone LOVED us and respected us. Now.......". That woman never makes a statement.

Bush has to learn one very important skill. He needs to FUCKING LISTEN. He needs to be trained like a toddler.

From:

jfargo.livejournal.com

Now I'm not saying that Bill Clinton is a Saint, I'm sure he made some mistakes that DIDN'T have to do with sex, and there could easily be some fingerpointing, I will not argue that. My point is that just because the other guy screwed it up doesn't mean the new guy gets a free pass and can ignore it!

I just don't understand I guess. Maybe it's because I actually question the world around me, and our President takes what his people tell him as gospel truth? I mean, is it that he doesn't listen, or is it that he's willfully ignorant? It's really starting to look like the second one to me.

From:

Look at who he surrounds himself with for "information". They get viable information like memo's with "Bin Laden determined to Strike US" and still ignore them. He's more interested in his ranch it seems.

Of course Clinton was no saint but I really don't recall as much finger pointing to Bush and Reagan as to things going wrong during his presidency. The Republicans still have a hard on that Clinton not only got in once but TWICE and have to just beat that dead horse to death.

Bush has just shown complete STUPIDITY on so many occasions - Katrina ("There's people at the Convention Center?" While the rest of us watched in horror at what was gonig on on CNN); the WMD fiasco, the lies, Foley, Delay, Abramoff, Scooter, Cheney shooting someone,immigration, social security and above all his complete lack of speaking the English language properly.

I like to stick my head in the sand too and ignore certain things in my life but I'm not the president.

From:

Look at who he surrounds himself with for "information". They get viable information like memo's with "Bin Laden determined to Strike US" and still ignore them.

Clinton actually had Bin Laden strike the US, and what did he do? Oh, that's right...he bombed a pharmaceutical factory while using a cigar on an intern. ;-)

And Bush is responsible for Cheney's hunting accident? I tell ya, you libs really reach some times. :-)

From:

not the crime, the cover up. If Al Gore shot someone when he was VEEP don't you think it would have gone a little further than it did with Cheney?

From:

If it was an intentional shooting, yes. There is nothing to indicate that Cheney's incident was anything other than accidental.

From:

Because he too has been brainwashed by Rush and the rest of the right wing media (aka Faux News) that everything is President Clinton's fault.

By the Democrats' own admission (I think it was a former Clinton cabinet member), Bush inherited a nuculer North Korea. Clinton signed a meaningless agreement with NK and decided the problem was solved. It wasn't the case. So really, in this instance, it kind of is partly Clinton's fault. It's also Bush's fault for relying on the international community to handle it instead of taking a more bilateral approach. And it's the UN's fault, because they've proven themselves to be a bunch of spineless ninnies and NK knows that they're nothing but a paper tiger.

From:

His response was a bit more restrained when The First Fornicator was asked if he had done enough to go after Al Quaeda. ;-)

Dem leaders (I think it may have even been former Clinton cabinet members) admitted that NK had 1 or 2 nukes before Bush came into office. So is it really intellectually honest to try to blame the entire NK situation on Bush, as some Dems and reporters are doing? I don't think so, and I'm not saying that because I generally vote Republican. Sure, he sounds like a whiney school kid, but so do all politicians.

"Hey, we got NK to sign a treaty. Problem solved! Now...where did I put that cigar?"

Okay, that's a bit of a low blow (no pun intended). ;-)

Did the guy who got his balls busted for saying NK was evil do enough to keep him from getting more nukes? Probably not. If they really were a nuculer power back then, what were/are his options?

NK won't sit down to the six-party talks. They threaten war if the UN imposes sanctions. The UN has proven itself to be impotent. The neo-cons see capitulating to NK's demand for bilateral talks as a sign of weakness. Meanwhile he has China and Russia throwing up road blocks left and right.

What's he supposed to do to "pay attention to it," aside from continue to pressure the UN and NK's neighbors to take the matter seriously?

Asking honestly, because I have no idea. How do you reason with a nutcase with nukes?

From:

jfargo.livejournal.com

There are a few things that I try not to bring up when talking about Presidents Clinton and Bush. With President Clinton I personally don't care about the sex scandal, and with President Bush I don't care that he can't speak very well. Personally I think both points are relatively unimportant. (I'll grant that lying under oath was important though, but at the same time I'm thinking that President Bush knew more about there not being WMDs in Iraq than he lets on.)

That said.

I'm okay with the fact that President Bush is blaming it on Clinton, believe it or not. Fine, it's Clinton's fault. I just wish that he could also say "And here is what I plan to do about it."

President Bush has his pick of the finest minds in America, surely someone can come up with something that might work to help ease tensions that doesn't include "Shock and Awe?"

Oh, and the UN being impotent? I think that's the US's fault, honestly.

UN: United States, do NOT attack Iraq.

USA: We're gonna!

UN: No! Bad! Don't!

USA: Whee! Boom! Crash! Look at them fly through the air! Haha Saddam!

UN: Well, what the hell can we do about a world superpower defying us?

Everyone else with nukes: Doors open boys!

Or something like that.

I don't do political humor for a reason. ;)

From: