Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

Wright vs. Hagee

You’re confusing having formal diplomatic relations with talking with people. Certainly through the U.N., we have been talking with Iran for that period of time. Just not directly. And North Korea? I seem to remember Madeline Albright trumpeting an agreement with Pyongyang a little over a decade ago, and our soldiers in the DMZ meet with their NK counterparts routinely.

Once again, McCain is right; though we don’t have formal diplomatic relations with Teheran, we do interact with them diplomatically, and the end result of all carrot and no stick is that we get spit at.

Oh, and it still hasn’t been established that Obama’s uncle liberated ANY death camp. I suspect he’s “making it up,” just like he made up the part about his parents getting together (in 1959) due to Selma (which was in 1965). Strange that he and Mrs. Clinton (I was named after Edmund Hillary) argue so much, as they’ve both got quite a problem with their memories.

Yes, soldiers yelling across the DMZ. Tthat is exactly what McCain was talking about. They will solve that pesky North Korean New-clear (Bush Pronunciation) program, probably the next Bush administration that McCain will bring. Can we at least agree that the past 8 years of US unilateralism has not been the best course of action?

McCain’s strength is in foreign policy, right? right???

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/mccain-mis takenly-says-iran-allowing-al-qaeda-fighters-into- country-later-corrects-error/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/mccain-mis takenly-says-iran-allowing-al-qaeda-fighters-into- country-later-corrects-error/

Right!

Actually, it’s not yelling across the DMZ. It’s a formal meeting to hash out whatever issues arise.

Glad to see a liberal like yourself, though, pointing out the futility of the Albright mission to Pyongyang. :^) (at least implicitly) Reality is that yes, we do communicate with both Teheran and Pyongyang, though we choose not to do so via formal diplomatic channels for the most part. The Albright fiasco is one reason why.

And yes, I’ve got some qualms about McCain, too, but at least he’s willing to visit to see what the situation really is, unlike some other politicians.

Obama and MCain are both liberals…so your point is???

“pointing out the futility of the Albright mission to Pyongyang.”

Perhaps the historical font known as Bubba can remind me when N. Korea started producing plutonium?

“at least he’s willing to visit to see what the situation really is, unlike some other politicians.”

To be honest I don’t think Senators, Representatives, or Heads of State really get a good idea of the situation on the ground when they visit. The visit tends to be set up, and where they go is cherry picked to show things in the best light.

Unless the officers on the ground are willing to give thier honest opinion to the visting politician, I doubt the politician gleans much more then a few photo ops from the experience.

And given how the military goes, I find it highly doubful that officers who would be willing to give an honest opinion will get anywhere near the visiting politicians.

So great, McCain is willing to go somewhere… But he goes with full security and a handpicked tour. Might as well be the slums of Chicago then…

Bubba, once again, please provide examples to support your argument.

and our soldiers in the DMZ meet with their NK counterparts routinely.

they’ve both got quite a problem with their memories.

Yes – clearly about things that matter, unlike the difference between Shi’a and Sunni.

kruse, somewhat before Albright went over there. The point is that in return for oil and a non-military reactor, they agreed to end producing it. That quickly was found to be fraudulent–just like McCain is pointing out. All talk and no action leads to disaster, and his likely opponent is failing to grasp this.

And are visits always to a “Potemkin Village?” You going to tell your commander in chief or Congress that they can’t see what they’ve read about in the papers? Something a bit lacking in your logic, pcomeau.

Checkbook, read the July 2003 article on the subject from National Geographic, which describes these meetings in detail, I believe. Or google DMZ; you’ll find it soon enough.

Bubba – from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm

“In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. “hostile policy.”"

You gotta better source?

And about telling the commander in chief what he can and can’t see – you’re assuming the commander wants to see areas that aren’t artificially rosy.

“And are visits always to a “Potemkin Village?” You going to tell your commander in chief or Congress that they can’t see what they’ve read about in the papers? Something a bit lacking in your logic, pcomeau.”

Hmmm looking at this from a military point of view… Give the politician a guided tour with heavy security (see McCain’s last visit.) Or chance ending up with dead politician.

Why yes I think the military will say no… First off Congressmen do not have authority to order the military around. So they don’t get much say (would be my guess.)

Second I doubt the Military is going to entertain the whims of the CiC if it chances him dying. (Let alone the Secret Service’s input on it.)

so guess want.. my logic is fine cause it’s based on security trumping the whims of the politician.

Again… the sorts of photo op tours politicians have done (both R & D) gives no more real info as to what is going on then does watching a dress parade inform you of military preparedness.

jkruse; exactly. Exactly what did talking with the North Koreans accomplish? It fueled their regime enough to get them nukes. Exactly McCain’s point.

(and exactly why did Albright go over there to negotiate “no nukes” if the CIA didn’t have information that they were refining plutonium in the 1990s? Try and follow me here, kruse)

pcomeau; you obviously do not understand the military. Those officers who come out of West Point or Annapolis have a creed: “We will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those among us who do.” It works so well, there are no locks on the dormitory doors at West Point or Annapolis. I’ve seen them personally, and yes, the “firsties” do have stuff worth stealing.

You’d never try that in Dinkytown, would you? Me either.

Despite finishing about last in his class, John McCain also adheres to this creed, and went through the Hell called the “Hanoi Hilton” rather than comply with the North Vietnamese.

For this reason, I don’t think that he’d tolerate a Potemkin Village. I disagree with him on many issues, but I don’t think he’d put up with the wool being pulled over his eyes, nor would officers he visits tolerate one being put up.

This may sound strange to those who are used to politicians lying their way through the world. However, it is the very real world that our military lives.

What does the Annapolis and West Point creed have to do with security in a war zone?

Yes I understand the military. Dad served. Ex girlfriend, now friend is coming up on 20 years service. I worked for a “Ring Knocker” (West Point Grad) from N.D. Another boss I worked for was an Apache pilot in the first Iraq war. I’ve made it a point, as a civilian, to understand and respect the role of the military and what they do for us. But they are human… like the rest of us.

As for what McCain would tolerate… hmmm… Yes if he fricken cares about the Military, as you believe, then he would tolerate a Potemkin Village tour. Why?

Anything else would put soldiers in danger. If he’s as ethical as you say then based on that he would roll with what the commanders on the ground would suggest. As they _have situational knowledge_ that he would not have. (Not actively serving in the area.)

The military, in war zone, wants to maintain security and territory (that’s their basic role.) A visiting politician, allowed to roam at his whim can put his security detail at risk, along with any other potential gains made.

Try again…

I don’t believe the wool is being pulled over his eyes per se. Just that a politician is not going to get some magic knowledge about what is going on just by visiting. The visits (no matter who does them) are political ploys for the sake of the politician. If they want to know what is going on then they will read the appropriate security briefings or ask their colleagues who have access to such how things are going.

Again if McCain is so ethical/knowledgeable etc., then he would be aware of this and trust what the commanders tell him to do.

and… don’t forget. McCain’s visit, in 2007, to an open air market in Baghdad was with:
100 soldiers
2 Apaches
3 Blackhawks

Again… how does that give a politician a real sense of the situation in a war zone?