N. Korea has far more history selling arms to terrorist groups than Iraq did, and along with drugs selling weapons to terrorist groups is one of the few ways that N. Korea brings in any money at all.
Nope try again. 1. The State Department has listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. 2. In October 2002, North Korea confirmed that it has a secret nuclear-weapons program involving highly enriched uranium. 3. North Korea has Weapons of Mass Destruction. U.S. officials interpreted North Korea’s October 2002 statement that it had “more powerful” weapons beyond its nuclear program as an acknowledgment that it has other weapons of mass destruction. According to earlier Pentagon assessments, North Korea has stockpiles of chemical weapons and can produce nerve and asphyxiation gases in bulk. North Korea is also thought to have an active but primitive biological weapons program, which violates international treaties and might be able to produce anthrax, cholera, and plague. 4.North Korea has reportedly deployed roughly 600 Scud missiles, including about 100 No Dong missiles that could reach South Korea and most ofJapan. In 1998, North Korea caused an uproar when it test-fired a Taepo Dong 1 missile; the missile’s trajectory sent it over Japanese territory. According to the CIA, North Korea’s Taepo Dong 2 missile, which could reach the western United States, may be ready for flight-testing. 5. North Korea has reportedly sold ballistic-missile technology to countries that the State Department lists as sponsors of terrorism—Iran, Syria, and Libya—as well as to other states including Pakistan and Yemen. Such technology could be used to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. These sales are the primary source of hard currency for the isolated country, and the proceeds allow North Korea to fund its own missile programs. 6.North Korea has sold Iran ballistic-missile technology that could be used to deliver Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. But the two are strange bedfellows; the atheistic, communist ideology of North Korea is incompatible with Iran’s Islamist fundamentalism. If the Bush admin had a bug up their butt for somebody who was threat to peace they need look no further than North Korea. But Kim Jong Il is not gonna roll over like Saddam did. Thankfully the Bush administration would not dare to invade North Korea.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/998317.asp?0cv=CB10 Ex-U.S. boss in Iraq sees mistakes Garner says Bremer shouldn’t have disbanded Iraqi army LONDON, Nov. 26 — The retired general who headed the first occupation government in Iraq said Wednesday the United States made major mistakes, including disbanding the Iraqi army, putting too few troops on the ground and failing to explain the goals of the war. . . . The former lieutenant general said that after learning of the State Department plan in February he had brought in Tom Warrick, a senior planner at the State Department involved in the study. But Garner said he was forced to fire Warrick by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. . . . “The international war on terrorism began to be fought in Iraq,” he said, with anti-American fighters coming in from other countries. “That’s not all bad,” Garner said. “Bring ’em all in there, we’ll kill ’em there.” Let's see, the Bushies Department of Defense thinks turf wars are more important than a real war, and with that last statement, it sounds like any country would have satisified this requirement for attracting muslim extremists. With this logic, we should have gone after Pakistan, because they actually have nuclear weapons ( and if they ever have a democracy again, it would be an Islamic democracy...), and are hosting Osama Bin Laden.
Hmmm. I guess we are suppose to not pay attention to the man behind the curtain. The US sold military arms to Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, ... If we took this policy to its natural next step, the US must attack itself to stop terrorism!!! God knows we might lose our minds again and supply more terrorist sponsering countries with arms. We must stop ourselves before we strike again!!!
Will and some other guy on the ad... ___________ Treason's Greetings The GOP calls Democrats soft on terror. By William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg Posted Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2003, at 2:15 PM PT "Reality" was produced for the Republican National Committee by Crawford Creative. To watch the ad on the RNC Web site, click here. For a transcript of the ad, click here. From: William Saletan To: Jacob Weisberg When Republicans introduced this ad, they suggested that Democrats had twisted President Bush's national security record for months and that it was time to even the score. If so, mission accomplished. In 30 seconds, this ad distorts the Democrats' views and impugns their motives more crudely than the Democrats have done to Bush in two years. The ad consists of video clips from Bush's most recent State of the Union address, backed by ominous music and interspersed with on-screen text messages known as chyrons. In the first clip, Bush points out that a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on the United States could be catastrophic. Fair enough. In the next clip, he says, "Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power." I agree. We have to fight back. It's the chyrons that do the dirty work. The second says, "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists." Bull. Not one leading Democrat in Congress or in the presidential campaign has criticized Bush for attacking terrorists. They've criticized him for not attacking terrorists. Specifically, they've faulted him for attacking Iraq and pretending that this was a blow against terrorism when the evidence indicates that Saddam Hussein gave no more support to al-Qaida—and in some cases, less support—than other regimes did. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We can argue about the wisdom of the Iraq invasion all day. But of all the arguments for that invasion, the notion of "attacking terrorists" remains the weakest. It's true that U.S. troops are now fighting terrorists in postwar Iraq, but it's false that Democrats are against winning that fight. What irks them is the dishonest way Bush got us into that fight in the first place and how badly he has waged it. Don't even get me started on the vicious parallelism of saying Democrats "attacked the President for attacking the terrorists." That phrase blurs the difference between violence and criticism and all but implies that Democrats are on the side of terrorists. Shame on Bush and the RNC. In the next clip, Bush complains that his critics "have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" After 9/11, this is an understandable view. Basically, Bush is saying we should err on the side of shooting first and asking questions later. But I can't think of a less appropriate time to make that argument than right now, in the wake of a war in which we shot first, then asked questions and found out that we needn't have shot. "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," says the third chyron. The fourth concludes, "Call Congress Now. Tell them to support the President's policy of preemptive self-defense." It's as though the embarrassing intelligence disclosures of the past six months never happened. Only someone who doesn't read the newspapers—or doesn't care what they report—could have authorized this ad. Every salient premise in the ad is false. Our national security wasn't in jeopardy. Our pre-emptive attack turned out not to be warranted self-defense. The regime Bush ousted wasn't particularly supportive of the terrorists who struck us, and leading Democrats who opposed the war did so for reasons precisely contrary to the reasons the ad attributes to them. Call the White House and the RNC now. Tell them to end the President's policy of lying about Iraq. From: Jacob Weisberg To: William Saletan I thought Bush would do this. I thought he'd run ugly, dishonest ads questioning the patriotism of his Democratic opponents. That's what Republicans do in campaigns (see Saxby Chambliss vs. Max Cleland, 2002). That's what the Bushes do when they're running for President (George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis, 1988). But I didn't think Bush would run red-baiting ads a year ahead of the election, before a single vote had been cast for any Democratic candidate. That the RNC has launched this ad so prematurely may be a hopeful sign for the Democrats. It suggests that the Bush administration recognizes a deep vulnerability on Iraq and is getting panicky. When you're panicked, you can make mistakes that help the other side. That's what I think is happening here. With this spot, Bush and the RNC insult the integrity of anyone who has qualms about the war—and the intelligence of everyone else. According the ad, believing that the invasion of Iraq was not central to the war on terrorism is equivalent to "attacking the President for attacking the terrorists." Arguing that we should occupy Iraq with more support from our allies or the United Nations makes you one of those who "call for us to RETREAT putting our national security in the hands of OTHERS." The scoundrels are seeking their last refuge before the first shot has been fired by a Democratic nominee. "Pre-emptive self-defense" has a double meaning here. It's not just a label for Bush's policy in Iraq. It's his strategy in the presidential campaign: Brand all criticisms of your policy as disloyal and maybe you won't have to answer them. What effect will this arrogant, aggressive stance have? My instinct is to think that it may do what Bush's arrogant, aggressive stance has done internationally. It will not only energize opponents of the war, but also alienate a good number of fence-sitters and potential supporters. This ad is a blunt instrument, but one sly element is the way it begs the question of whether the attack on Saddam Hussein is part of the campaign against terrorism. Somber organ music plays in the background as we see clips of Bush warning the nation about the consequences of a terrorist attack on the United States using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The doleful music and the ominous words conjure the image of a memorial service after some future catastrophe on an even larger scale than Sept. 11. But as you point out, Bush is using this 9/11 brush to tar Democrats who opposed the war in Iraq precisely because they wanted a more single-minded focus for the war on terrorism. Of course, the Democrats have their own vulnerabilities on Iraq. Several of the candidates were highly unrealistic, to say the least, in their approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein. With the honorable exceptions of Lieberman and Gephardt, they've all been irresponsible in their refusal to support funding for the occupation—which we need to make a success, whether or not the invasion was a good idea. Criticizing them for such failings may lack the panache of calling them soft on terrorism. But the outrageous claim that the Democrats are aiding Osama will help push neutrals and doubters back into their arms.
