KRC

So, they are not concerned with what is best for the country, but are only concerned with what is best for their re-election? Sounds like things I have been saying for a while as to why these people have no business being in Congress. Again, it is a foreign business transaction. From what I understand, the only reason why this was brought up is because of a lawsuit in Florida. There is not much Bush can do about that. Yeah, way to stay on top of things, Congresscritters.

We can always invade Iran.

They are using VABills math? The original 30 day review was "too quick" and "not enough time to properly review the situation." But a mere week and a half and these Congresscritters have had enough time to fully understand the issue and can make an informed decision. Ummm...yeah...OK...

It can happen. The tactics are pretty much the same. Do not underestimate the amount that Iran and the DPRK have been working together on this issue. It shows in the similarities in how they are addressing the problem.

They are taking a page out of the DPRK playbook. This is exactly what the DPRK did when threatened with referral to the Security Council. The SC immediately backed down.

I agree with some parts of the article and disagree with others. I agree that Congresscritters are not as devoted to their job, but more devoted to campaigning. This is especially true with Representatives, since they are up for re-election every two years. As soon as one campaign ends, their re-election campaign begins. At least the Senate has a little time before they run for re-election. The problem is that they just wait until re-election time before they start to do anything (bills suddenly appear and they suddenly start to be more vocal around election time). In both cases, it is not about what is best for the country or their constituents, but what is best for their re-election chances. Making Congresscritters stay in Washington more will not solve this. Right now, the whole system is fugged up. If they only want it to be a part-time job, pay them accordingly. Cut their salary and benefits and force them to live by the same rules as their constituents. Hell, we have enough trouble getting these representatives to actually read the bills they are voting on, let alone understand what they are voting on. Just take on look at roll call votes and the bills/items they are voting on and you can see that there is no reason to have them there longer. They can be there less. They, however, need to do a better job, which I think was the point of the article. Maybe, we should have televised hearings and form an independent commission to look into this issue.

I mentioned this on PPP and I will mention it here. Two people from the UAE blew up a building on 9/11. Two people from the USA blew up a building in Oklahoma City. If we follow the xenophobic lahjik espoused in this thread, we should not allow U.S. companies to operate the ports in this country. There is no difference.

I think it is in Portland, OR.

There seems to be some confusion on the "moderation" aspect I spoke of in my post. They party would not be changing their core beliefs. What they are changing is how it is presented to the public (of course, this could lead to confusion as well). Let me give you an example of what this group is trying to do. This is a hypothetical example. Reduction in the size of government: Libertarians want to strip federal government down to Constitutionally mandated functions. If you run on a platform of major cuts in government, you will lose. People will be scared that you are cutting too much, too fast. What this splinter group wants to do is come up with realistic ways to cut the government. In a 4-year term, it is possible to cut, say, 5% of the total government budget. This is what you run on: a 5% cut in government spending. Then the candidate discusses how they plan to cut 5% of the federal government budget, showing small decreases in a variety of areas. No major cuts, just “tweeks” here and there. This is the moderate approach this group wants to focus on with their candidates. Realistic goals that can be accomplished in a term or two. Do not focus on the end goals (which would take generations to accomplish). Just focus on what can be realistically accomplished in a short amount of time. This shows a more moderate approach to governing that people can agree with, while not abandoning the candidates core beliefs. This will make the party more attractive to moderates, while still working towards the goals of the extremists. In order to accomplish this, the party platform (and possibly the constitution and bylaws) will need to be changed. This group is currently working on platform revisions to be proposed at the next convention (July). If the platform changes are not accepted, then the group will break off of the party and form their own party. They currently see the Libertarian Party on a road to destruction. This is their attempt to make the party viable in the future.

Anyone have the actual text of the deal? There is a lot of commentary on problems with the deal, but nobody is actually allowing us to see the text to allow us to make up our own minds.

No. Changing the image of the party from radical extremists to realists. From their website: I wrote an essay for them: Linky Thingy

Will do. The LP convention is this summer. The results of that convention will determine the future course of action for this group. Expect to hear by the end of the summer.

I ran and won local office as a libertarian. I am no longer a member of the Libertarian Party (although, I am still a registered libertarian). There is a movement afoot to change the Libertarian Party, to make it more moderate. I am watching the results of that movement. If they are not successful, they are going to branch out and form their own party.

If I was forced to choose, I would go with no leaks. Of course, in reality, I am a proactive idealist. I would be cleaning up the government so that there is no reason to try to get leaked information. The government would be stripped down to only providing Constitutionally mandated functions. Congress would be a part-time job, where they only meet a few times a year. Government work would not be about power and money, because you would have very little of both. Media types would be jailed for publishing classified information. I could go on, but I am already well beyond the topic of this thread.

...and in the name of "freedom of the press."

The White House does not always authorize the leaking. There are more stories in the press than just "Plamegate." I agree about the treason charges. You release calssified information, you are tossed in jail for treason and punished to the fullest extent of the law. No hiding behind sources.

Friggin' government contractors.

Where do I say anything about absolving Bush?

I was referring to actual CIA operations that could be blown in the media's haste to publish things to get sales. This has nothing to do with being cynical. It is just flat-out stupidity. Both the media and the leakers need to be held accountable and they need to come down hard. People's lives are at stake. As far as these videos, there was nothing about context in these videos (as BiB mentioned, what other meetings did Bush have surrounding this video?). Without that, it is tough to make an informed decision.

That is what pisses me off more than anything. Confidential/classified information is continually making it to the press. Something like this does not have the same national security impact as, say, the CIA covert operations being done in Europe that the NYT and other news organizations decided to publish, but that is not my point. The point is little to no regard for confidential/classified information remaining just that: confidential/classified. It is more about vendettas and political maneuvering.

I wonder if they are going to release video or transcripts of the meetings the mayor of NO and the governor of LA had (at the same point in the timeline) with their disaster officials.

I wonder why Newbie had the admins change his name to ASCI?

Nope, because it is not about the ports. It is about campaigning for re-election.

Excerpts from my book plus a few observations: During the mid to late 1950’s, the Soviets trained scientists from communist governments in nuclear technologies. North Korea was one country that took advantage of this training. In 1956, the Soviets and North Koreans signed an agreement to advance North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, albeit for only peaceful purposes. By the mid-1960s, the Soviets helped Pyongyang build a five-megawatt nuclear research facility and reactor at Yongbyon. By the 1970’s, Pyongyang agreed to place the reactor under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Beginning around 1975, the Chinese government started working with the North Koreans to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. It is alleged that the program was never completed, but the DPRK gained valuable experience in missile design from this project. By 1980, the North Koreans purchased Soviet Scud missiles from Egypt. The Chinese assisted the DPRK in refining the design of the Scud and the North Koreans sold this new missile to Iran. Starting in the 1980’s, the North Koreans began building additional reactors. The DPRK stated that they were to be used for electricity, but intelligence indicated that the plants were not connected to the electric grid. Couple that with the fact that intelligence also indicated that plutonium-reprocessing plants were built adjacent to the reactors. This is a clear indicator that the North Koreans were working on a nuclear weapons program. By the end of the 1980’s, the North Koreans had started building the Nodong series of missiles. By 1994, U.S. intelligence discovered that the North Koreans had started working on a multi-stage missile and had made significant progress. This new design was based on the Chinese CSS-2 and evolved into the North Korean Taepodong-2. In December of 1985, North Korea went to the Soviets to ask for continuing aid. Moscow was concerned with the potential for the DPRK to develop nuclear weapons and forced North Korea to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This would force the Pyongyang to submit to IAEA inspections of their nuclear reactors. By 1990, news reports indicated that North Korea had the capability to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel. Throughout the 1990s, there were reports that North Korea has reprocessed enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. The total amount of plutonium reprocessed is up for debate. Some foreign intelligence agencies have estimated that North Korea has reprocessed anywhere between 6 and 24 kilograms of plutonium. It is estimated that North Korea would need between 4 and 8 kilograms to make a single nuclear weapon. Therefore, if the estimates are correct, North Korea could possess between one and six nuclear weapons. By the mid to late 1990s, evidence suggests a connection between North Korea and Pakistan regarding uranium enrichment technology transfers where Pakistan sent centrifuges and designs to North Korea in exchange for ballistic missiles. U.S. intelligence suspects that by this time, there were three suspected uranium enrichment facilities: the Academy of Sciences near Pyongyang, Hagap and Yehong-dong. In 1991, a joint declaration created the North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC), which was tasked to monitor the cessation of manufacturing, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons along with forbidding the reprocessing and enrichment of nuclear materials. This commission never really got off the ground due to complications on reaching agreements on inspections. In the summer of 1991, it is alleged that North Korean officials were in Libya to discuss the sale of Nodong missile technology. In late 1992, Bush I was the first President to have high-level discussions with North Korea since the Korean War Armistice. In June 1993, North Korea announced that they were withdrawing from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Negotiations continued for 16 months until the 1994 Agreed Framework was signed. Of course, Clinton had nothing to do with the Agreed Framework. Talks were continuing to break down. When things looked like they could not get any worse, Jimmy Carter went over to North Korea (on his own, mind you, not as a member of the Clinton Administration) to work on the situation. Carter is the one who came up with the Agreed Framework, not Clinton. Now, how bad are things when Jimmy Carter says, “Your foreign policy is so screwed up that I need to bail you out”? During the Senatorial process to approve the Agreed Framework, Senator Larry Pressler pressed Ambassador Robert Gallucci on the fact that the Agreed Framework did not properly address cheating on the part of North Korea. Gallucci stated that he thought the agreement will still allow IAEA inspections, but Pressler felt that the inspections were inadequate (he was right). Clinton was proud of the Agreed Framework, stating, “This agreement will help achieve a long standing and vital American objective, an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” During his re-election bid, Clinton commented, “In the last four years, we have frozen North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed, “the Agreed Framework that we worked out in ’94, we were able to freeze their fissile [nuclear] material programs.” The Agreed Framework was signed and North Korea ignored it. By 1998, tensions rose again. Why not? They knew that all they needed to do was talk tough and the U.S. would bribe them to keep quiet. On August 31, 1998, North Korea fired a multistage over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, proving it can strike any part of Japan's territory. As if on queue, on September 10, 1998, Clinton used his executive authority to circumvent congressional opposition to the 1994 Agreed Framework by shifting $15 million to fund the purchase of 150,000 tons of heavy-fuel oil for North Korea. On September 25, 1998, in his U.N. speech, South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Hong Soon Young called on the global community to make a concerted effort to deter North Korea from developing, testing, and exporting missiles. He also released a joint press statement with Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright condemning North Korea's missile launch, but reaffirming support for the 1994 Agreed Framework. A week later, the U.S. re-opened missile talks with North Korean representatives in New York, with no substantial progress being made. State Department spokesman James Rubin said that if North Korea continued missile production, deployment and flight tests as well as the export of missile technology, it would be highly destabilizing and would have very serious negative consequences. Throughout this whole ordeal, In the beginning of 1999 (February), CIA director George Tenet says that North Korea is developing a new generation of missiles that could deliver larger payloads to the continental United States. Within a week, the Korean Central News Agency announced that North Korea "will never give up" its "sovereign right" to build and launch missiles. At the close of the fourth round of US-North Korean missile talks (March, 1999), U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Robert Einhorn announced that North Korea had offered to suspend its missile exports in exchange for cash compensation from the United States. Einhorn said that the North Korean proposal is unacceptable, but that the United States had offered to lift economic sanctions on North Korea in successive stages if North Korea pledged to cooperate on missile issues. Einhorn also warned North Korea that another missile launch will have negative consequences. South Korean Minister of Unification Kan In-duk tells the South Korean national assembly that North Korea is demanding $500 million in annual compensation to stop missile exports. In May, 1999, U.S. policy coordinator for North Korea William Perry visited North Korea and proposed a package deal from the United States, Japan, and South Korea to end economic sanctions, provide economic assistance, and establish diplomatic relations with North Korea in exchange for an end to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. A month later, India detains the North Korean ship Ku Wol San at Kandla. Indian officials discover 148 crates containing machinery, blueprints, and parts for developing and building ballistic missiles. It is believed that the cargo's destination is Pakistan. In December, a U.S.-led consortium signs a $4.6 billion contract for two safer, Western-developed light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea. The U.S. drags their feet and North Korea again threatened to restart its nuclear program if the U.S. doesn't compensate for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants. In July of 2001, the State Department reported that North Korea was going ahead with development of its long-range missile. A Bush administration official says North Korea conducted an engine test of the Taepodong-1 missile. By December, Bush warned Iraq and North Korea that they would be "held accountable" if they developed weapons of mass destruction "that will be used to terrorize nations." 2002 went like this: Jan. 29: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says. Oct. 4: A visiting U.S. delegation said North Korean officials revealed that the country had a second covert nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement -- a program using enriched uranium. Oct. 16: U.S. officials said they have discovered evidence of a nuclear weapons program in North Korea. Oct. 26: Bush, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung met at an Asian-Pacific regional summit in Mexico and agree to seek a peaceful end to the North's nuclear problem. Nov. 11: The United States, Japan and South Korea halt oil supplies to North Korea promised under the 1994 deal. Dec. 12: North Korea reactivated nuclear facilities at Yongbyon that were frozen under the 1994 deal with the United States. Dec. 13: North Korea asked the U.N. nuclear watchdog to remove monitoring seals and cameras from its nuclear facilities. Dec. 14: The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency urged North Korea to retract its decision to reactivate its nuclear facilities and abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Dec. 21: North Korea removed monitoring seals and cameras from its nuclear facilities. Now, let’s see if he was serious about discussing this issue or if this was yet another attempt to avoid rational discussion.

Sounds like both parties.