T Nation

Good for Bush

As long as this holds, it’s a major achievement for him I think. Oh, the wonders of diplomacy…

U.S. Declares North Korea Off Terror List

By HELENE COOPER
Published: October 12, 2008
WASHINGTON �?? The Bush administration announced Saturday that it had removed North Korea from a list of state sponsors of terrorism in a bid to salvage a fragile nuclear deal that seemed on the verge of collapse.

Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said that the United States made the decision after North Korea agreed to resume disabling a plutonium plant and to allow some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier.

The deal, which the Bush administration had portrayed as a major foreign policy achievement, began slipping away in recent weeks in a dispute over the verification program. Just days ago, North Korea barred international inspectors from the plant.

The decision to remove North Korea from the terror list was a dramatic moment for President Bush, who had called the country part of an �??axis of evil�?? and had only reluctantly ordered administration officials to engage in negotiations, saying that the United States had made deals with the nation�??s leaders before without winning enough concessions.

That calculus changed in 2006, when North Korea exploded a nuclear device.

But Mr. Bush is already having trouble selling the new agreement to his own party. Republican lawmakers, including the presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, quickly expressed concern, complaining that North Korea had yet to demonstrate that it was serious about adhering to its commitment to denuclearize.

Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, called the deal �??a modest step forward�?? in dismantling North Korea�??s nuclear weapons program. Other Democrats said they welcomed the agreement but noted that it did not go much beyond an agreement President Clinton reached with North Korea in 1994, which the Bush administration, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, criticized as inadequate.

Bush administration officials, trying to head off potential criticism that they were simply seeking a foreign policy victory in their last months, said the agreement was the best the United States could get at this time.

Ms. Rice �??very strongly feels that it is our own responsibility, until Jan. 20, 2009, to act as good stewards of the national interest,�?? Mr. McCormack said during a news conference.

In the most significant part of the accord announced Saturday, North Korea agreed to a verification plan that would allow United States inspectors access to its main declared nuclear compound, at Yongbyon; international inspectors have worked at the site on and off for years. But the deal puts off decisions on the thorniest verification issue: what would happen if international experts suspected the North was hiding other nuclear weapons facilities, particularly those related to uranium enrichment.

The United States wanted the North to agree to inspections at sites that raised suspicions, but North Korea balked. The new agreement calls for United States inspectors to be granted access to such sites �??based on mutual consent�?? with North Korea.

Experts on North Korea say that the concession by the United States was probably necessary to achieve a deal, but that it no doubt will lead to future fights, since the North�??s leaders will not want to give inspectors free rein to travel the country.

Patricia A. McNerney, one of the State Department negotiators, acknowledged that issue would probably lead to a hornets�?? nest of problems. �??Going into verification with North Korea will not be easy, we know that,�?? she said. �??This is the most secret and opaque regime in the world.�??

North Korea on Sunday welcomed its removal from Washington’s terrorism blacklist and said that it would resume disabling its nuclear weapons facilities, allowing American and United Nations monitors back into its main nuclear complex.

South Korea and Japan also hailed the agreement on Sunday. But hawkish politicians in Washington’s two main Asian allies, as well as relatives of people allegedly kidnapped by the Communist state, accused the United States of giving in to the North’s bad behavior.

“We are extremely disappointed with the United States, which we had believed would be a pillar of anti-terrorism and human rights,” said Choi Sung Yong, 56, head of the Abductees’ Family Union, which includes relatives of hundreds of South Koreans, mostly fishermen, allegedly abducted to the North.

Relatives of the South Korean and Japanese abductees have counted on Bush to use the terrorism blacklist as leverage to pressure the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, to return their missing family members.

North Korea, which has long sought international acceptance, had been pushing hard to get off the terror list. But Mr. McCormack made clear on Saturday that North Korea is still subject to numerous economic sanctions.

The agreement follows weeks of intense negotiations and high-stakes brinkmanship, as North Korea, furious that the Bush administration had not removed it from the terrorism list as it agreed last summer, threatened to restart its plutonium-based weapons program and barred international inspectors from the Yongbyon plant. In Washington, State Department proponents of the deal, including Ms. Rice and her top North Korea envoy, Christopher R. Hill, battled critics inside and outside the administration who castigated them for trying to salvage the accord.

The administration has been at war with itself over whether to go ahead with the North Korea pact despite objections from critics in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, and even some members of the State Department�??s verification and compliance office. That rift spilled into the open at the news conference on Saturday, when a reporter asked Paula A. DeSutter, the assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance and implementation, how she responded to criticism of the deal from John R. Bolton, her former boss at the State Department.

Ms. DeSutter did not defend the accord, saying simply, �??John is the epitome of a skeptical policymaker, and that�??s appropriate.�??

Despite the internal fights, Ms. Rice convinced President Bush last week that this was the best the administration could get in its remaining time in office. But as late as Friday, things remained up in the air, said one administration official, who, like several other officials and diplomats interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. Another senior administration official described the internal deliberations as a �??close call.�??

Senator McCain said in a statement that he would not support the deal until he got some questions answered. �??I expect the administration to explain exactly how this new verification agreement advances American interests and those of our allies,�?? he said. He added that he was �??concerned that this latest agreement appears to have been reached between Washington and Pyongyang, and only then discussed with our Asian allies in an effort to garner their support.�??

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida, issued a statement strongly criticizing the deal. �??I am profoundly disappointed,�?? she said. �??By rewarding North Korea before the regime has carried out its commitments, we are encouraging this regime to continue its illicit nuclear program and violate its pledge to no longer provide nuclear assistance to extremist regimes.�??

Two of the Bush administration�??s main criticisms of the 1994 accord were that it did not mandate the removal of nuclear material from North Korea and that international inspectors were limited to Yongbyon.

The 1994 accord collapsed in 2002 after the Bush administration accused North Korea of circumventing the agreement by pursuing a second path to a bomb, based on enriching uranium. The White House said at the time that it would require full verification that any uranium program had been halted, though later the intelligence community expressed some doubts about how far the program had gotten.

Although the new agreement leaves open the possibility of future inspections outside Yongbyon, it leaves vague what mechanism would be used to determine the status of a uranium program.

The North has agreed in principle to give up its nuclear material and any weapons, but that seems almost certain to be subject to negotiations with the next president. During the Bush administration, North Korea is believed to have produced enough bomb-grade plutonium for six or more nuclear weapons.

Bush administration officials have been consulting about the latest deal with its partners in the so-called �??six-party�?? talks, the group including Russia, South Korea and Japan that negotiated the agreement in 2007 for the North to halt its nuclear activities.

Diplomats said that Japan had expressed reservations about removing North Korea from the terror list because the North still had not addressed all of their concerns about abductions of Japanese citizens decades ago.

After the official announcement on Saturday, Japan�??s finance minister, Shoichi Nakagawa, called the American decision �??extremely regrettable.�??

South Korea has been more supportive.

�??We welcome the agreement because we believe this will help put the six-party negotiations back on track and eventually lead to the dismantlement of North Korea�??s nuclear programs,�?? said Kim Sook, South Korea�??s main nuclear envoy, during a news conference in Seoul on Sunday.

The South Korean foreign minister, Yu Myung-hwan, had stressed Friday that if the six-party negotiations fell apart now, the next administration would have difficulty restarting them.

Gary Samore, a nonproliferation expert in the Clinton administration, characterized the deal as probably the best that could be gotten at this time, but warned of stormy times to come.

�??Every agreement you ever have with the North Koreans always contains certain ambiguities, and that ends up being the basis for which you have the next round of talks,�?? he said. �??It�??s always two steps forward and one step back.�??

For instance, he said, besides the issue of access to suspected nuclear sites, the United States and North Korea appear to have fudged the critical issue of whether American inspectors will be allowed to take all the samples they want out of the country to foreign laboratories for inspection.

According to a fact sheet issued by the Bush administration, the two sides agreed �??on the use of scientific procedures, including sampling and forensic activities,�?? although the sheet doesn�??t say where those tests would be done.

Mr. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations under Mr. Bush, said that the Bush administration had �??punted�?? the hardest issue, that of inspections beyond declared nuclear sites.

�??This means that North Korea has a veto over everything beyond Yongbyon,�?? he said, �??so that�??s a clear victory for North Korea.�??

For perspective, the US state department has this to say about North Korea:

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987. The DPRK continued to harbor four Japanese Red Army members who participated in a jet hijacking in 1970. The Japanese government continued to seek a full accounting of the fate of the 12 Japanese nationals believed to have been abducted by DPRK state entities; five such abductees have been repatriated to Japan since 2002. As part of the Six-Party Talks process, the United States reaffirmed its intent to fulfill its commitments regarding the removal of the designation of the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism in parallel with the DPRK�??s actions on denuclearization and in accordance with criteria set forth in U.S. law.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103711.htm

What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.[/quote]

Good thread. Now, if only the god-king Kim Jung Il could be convinced to stop engaging in terrorism against his country’s 23 million inhabitants who count themselves lucky when they eat 1 meal a day.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.[/quote]

I think it was a mistake. Taking NK off the terrorist watch list doesn’t mean a thing. They are still going to pursue nukes, and they will sell whatever they have to to whoever will buy it.

That’s like promising to stop calling a retard a retard. At the end of the day, the retard IS a retard.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.

I think it was a mistake. Taking NK off the terrorist watch list doesn’t mean a thing. They are still going to pursue nukes, and they will sell whatever they have to to whoever will buy it.

That’s like promising to stop calling a retard a retard. At the end of the day, the retard IS a retard. [/quote]

While I understand your point, I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

At least we’re talking to them… I believe we’ll make more progress with them by doing this than by using angry rhetoric.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.

I think it was a mistake. Taking NK off the terrorist watch list doesn’t mean a thing. They are still going to pursue nukes, and they will sell whatever they have to to whoever will buy it.

That’s like promising to stop calling a retard a retard. At the end of the day, the retard IS a retard.

While I understand your point, I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

At least we’re talking to them… I believe we’ll make more progress with them by doing this than by using angry rhetoric.[/quote]

You actually want to TALK to a guy who has DEATH CAMPS in his country? Who is so damn adamant in his ideology that he lets his people starve? Who arrests people for taking a picture of the Great Leader deemed to be disrespectful?

We should be bombing the living shit out of Pyongyang. Exterminate the vermin and free the people of NK.

When in doubt, bomb.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.

I think it was a mistake. Taking NK off the terrorist watch list doesn’t mean a thing. They are still going to pursue nukes, and they will sell whatever they have to to whoever will buy it.

That’s like promising to stop calling a retard a retard. At the end of the day, the retard IS a retard.

While I understand your point, I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

At least we’re talking to them… I believe we’ll make more progress with them by doing this than by using angry rhetoric.[/quote]

In all seriousness why do you think we will make more progress now?

NK is an totalitarian regime run by the same family for 60 years. They use concentration camps and famine to control the population and haven’t negotiated in good faith since they were founded.

What change do you think this will move will bring?

here’s a pretty good piece…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385733887027383.html

Bush’s North Korea Surrender Will Have Lasting Consequences

Nuclear proliferators have a new model to follow.

By JOHN R. BOLTON

North Korea has now achieved one of its most-prized objectives: removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. In exchange, the U.S. has received “promises” on verification that are vague and amount to an agreement to negotiate the critical points later.

In the Bush administration’s waning days, this is what passes for diplomatic “success.” It is in fact the final crash and burn of a once-inspiring global effort to confront and reverse nuclear proliferation, thereby protecting America and its friends.

Delisting the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) as a terrorist sponsor represents a classic case of prizing the negotiation process over substance, where the benefits of “diplomatic progress” can be trumpeted in the media while the specifics of the actual agreement, and their manifest inadequacies, fade into the shadows.

In the weeks before being delisted, North Korea expelled international inspectors, first from its Yongbyon plutonium-reprocessing facility and then from the entire complex. It moved to reactivate Yongbyon and to conduct a possible second nuclear-weapons test, and prepared for an extensive salvo of antiship and other missile capabilities. All of this the Bush administration dismissed as North Korea’s typical negotiation style.

The irony is that the DPRK need not have gone to the trouble. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were apparently ready to cave in without the show of force, and indeed rushed to announce the terrorism delisting during a three-day weekend. Thus, while the North’s macho display was irrelevant, the conclusion Pyongyang will draw is that bluff and bluster worked.

So now Pyongyang has what it wants, and Washington has a vague, inadequate invitation to more verification palavering. In any complex negotiation, implementation is the real test, and nowhere is this more painfully evident than in arms-control agreements.

North Korea is the world’s most accomplished serial violator of international agreements, beginning with the Korean War Armistice Agreement it signed in 1953 and including every other significant subsequent DPRK commitment. Most pertinent here, these breaches include repeated promises to give up its nuclear capabilities, beginning with the 1992 Joint North-South Declaration and the ill-fated 1994 Agreed Framework.

The only upside is that the Bush administration may not have time to concede anything more to Pyongyang before it limps into history. It is hard to see how Barack Obama could do worse. John McCain penetratingly observed on Friday that the U.S. must “avoid reaching for agreement for its own sake.”

But the damage done by the administration’s latest surrender extends far beyond failing to rein in North Korea. Key allies like Japan and South Korea were not adequately consulted, thus eliminating the veneer of “multilateralism” the administration so valued. Japan has been humiliated, objecting as it did not only to the verification agreement’s inadequacy, but also to the complete disregard for the numerous Japanese citizens abducted over the years by Pyongyang and never accounted for. The abduction issue is enormously important in Japan, as it would be in the U.S. if North Korea had kidnapped our citizens.

Sidelining Japan is a manifestation of the State Department’s Sinocentric obsession. The consequences could well be detrimental to both Washington and Beijing, however, if Japanese sentiment for developing its own independent nuclear-weapons capability continues to rise. This could occur as Tokyo sees the North Korean nuclear threat persisting, and as China continues to upgrade and expand its strategic nuclear forces and blue-water navy. Fears that the U.S. nuclear umbrella is no longer reliable will only add to Japan’s concerns. Japan may have been frog-marched into acquiescing, but there will likely be a widening of the split between the U.S. and its closest ally in Asia.

The negative ramifications are not confined to Northeast Asia. In Tehran and the capitals of other terrorist states and aspiring nuclear proliferators, policy makers are doubtless ecstatic that Pyongyang has out-negotiated Washington once more, and they are considering ways to apply the North Korea model to their own situations.

The North was nearly able to complete a nuclear reactor in Syria, and possibly other, related facilities, and suffered no penalty for it. Perhaps Iran will conclude it should do the same. What does it have to lose? In Tripoli, Moammar Gadhafi must be wondering why Libya’s nuclear-weapons program now resides in Oak Ridge, Tenn., whereas the full extent of the DPRK’s program remains unknown and now unknowable.

Having bent the knee to North Korea, Secretary Rice appears primed to do the same with Iran, despite that regime’s egregious and extensive involvement in terrorism and the acceleration of its nuclear program. Watch for the opening of a U.S. diplomatic post in Tehran within days after our Nov. 4 election, and other concessions on the nuclear front. Hard as it is to believe, there may be worse yet to come.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

I think Japan’s only option now is an arms race of its own.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385665305527199.html

WSJ EDITORIAL

Off the Terror List

State’s chief verifier says she wasn’t consulted.

The axis of evil lost a charter member this weekend, when the U.S. took North Korea off the State Department’s list of terror-sponsoring states. In return, Pyongyang promised to let international inspectors look everywhere except where its nuclear materials might actually be hidden.

Kim Jong Il, despite having broken every disarmament promise he’s ever made, has thus managed to persuade another U.S. President that he’s serious about giving up his nuclear program. President Bush’s agreement sends this message to Iran and other rogue states: Go nuclear and your political leverage increases.

The U.S. had vowed not to remove North Korea from the terror blacklist until Kim’s government had agreed to a “strong verification regime.” But then North Korea started calling the U.S. bluff – most recently on Thursday, when it told the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to start packing their bags – and the U.S. caved. As John Bolton notes nearby, Tehran will get the point.

No verification regime is 100% certain – and searching for nuclear materials in North Korea, which has a history of lying and cheating, poses special challenges for even the most rigorous inspections. But our sources tell us the U.S. has the technical expertise to get up to 98% accuracy – providing it can do snap, on-demand inspections anywhere in the country.

Instead, Pyongyang will permit the verifiers to have unfettered access only to its declared nuclear sites – all of which the IAEA has already combed over again and again. Access to any other location will be by “mutual consent.” Inspectors will be welcome to search the Yongbyon complex and a few other known nuclear sites, such as universities. If they want to inspect anywhere else, they’ll need Kim’s assent. If they request access, and Pyongyang agrees, it’s a sure bet the offending materials will be long gone before the inspectors arrive. This is trust but pretend to verify.

Meanwhile, the State Department didn’t trust its own verification experts to take part in the disarmament process. Late Thursday, less than two days before the agreement was announced, we asked Paula DeSutter, head of the Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation, what she knew about the pending deal: “I have no clue,” she said. “I know zero, zip, nada, nothing. . . . That’s on the record. Zero, zip, nada, nothing.”

Ms. DeSutter says that no one from her bureau accompanied State Department negotiator Christopher Hill on his trip to Pyongyang two weeks ago. Nor did anyone from her bureau take part in the interagency process that evaluated the deal. “I was not consulted,” she said. The fact that the verification bureau was left out of the loop is further cause to suspect that Mr. Hill and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cared above all about declaring a diplomatic success. (For the record, Ms. DeSutter said over the weekend that she supports the deal.)

Since the disarmament deal was struck in February 2007, the North has refused to give a complete accounting of its plutonium program, disclose how many nuclear weapons it has and where they are, or come clean on its suspected uranium program. Now it has managed to wriggle out of its commitments on verification – all without having to wait for an Obama Administration.

A few hours before Washington announced it was taking North Korea off the terror list, the Pyongyang media released the first photographs of Kim Jong Il since he had been rumored to have fallen ill two months ago. He was smiling

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think Japan’s only option now is an arms race of its own. [/quote]

Terrifying to contemplate - but I wouldn’t blame them.

If (as?) US hegemony recedes, the world will revert to its normal state, i.e., become a much more dangerous and chaotic place.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think Japan’s only option now is an arms race of its own.

Terrifying to contemplate - but I wouldn’t blame them.

If (as?) US hegemony recedes, the world will revert to its normal state, i.e., become a much more dangerous and chaotic place. [/quote]

I don’t know why it’s terrifying, but whatever. Japan doesn’t have any young men for an imperialist adventure. Their population is aging rapidly and their birth-rates are in the toilet. What they need is missile defense.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When in doubt, bomb.
[/quote]

That really says it all for you, doesn’t it. You realize these are real people being killed, right? And don’t you consider yourself a Christian?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think Japan’s only option now is an arms race of its own.

Terrifying to contemplate - but I wouldn’t blame them.

If (as?) US hegemony recedes, the world will revert to its normal state, i.e., become a much more dangerous and chaotic place.

I don’t know why it’s terrifying, but whatever. Japan doesn’t have any young men for an imperialist adventure. Their population is aging rapidly and their birth-rates are in the toilet. What they need is missile defense. [/quote]

I don’t know, it seems to me that an arms race in any part of the world is terrifying to contemplate. Suppose, for example, China gets swept into the vortex to keep things in order? They DO have a large reserve of unemployed young men.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When in doubt, bomb.

That really says it all for you, doesn’t it. You realize these are real people being killed, right? And don’t you consider yourself a Christian?[/quote]

I just hope he’s merely trolling. WTF.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.

I think it was a mistake. Taking NK off the terrorist watch list doesn’t mean a thing. They are still going to pursue nukes, and they will sell whatever they have to to whoever will buy it.

That’s like promising to stop calling a retard a retard. At the end of the day, the retard IS a retard.

While I understand your point, I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

At least we’re talking to them… I believe we’ll make more progress with them by doing this than by using angry rhetoric.[/quote]

I prefer a fly swatter.

EDIT: BTW, just for future reference, any time Bush does something that incites praise from guys like you it’s a pretty good bet it’s one of the times he’s abandoned guys like me. The thought was nice though.

[quote]hedo wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What the fuck?

I make a thread praising W, and everyone ignores me.

Fuck all of you.

I think it was a mistake. Taking NK off the terrorist watch list doesn’t mean a thing. They are still going to pursue nukes, and they will sell whatever they have to to whoever will buy it.

That’s like promising to stop calling a retard a retard. At the end of the day, the retard IS a retard.

While I understand your point, I think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

At least we’re talking to them… I believe we’ll make more progress with them by doing this than by using angry rhetoric.

In all seriousness why do you think we will make more progress now?

NK is an totalitarian regime run by the same family for 60 years. They use concentration camps and famine to control the population and haven’t negotiated in good faith since they were founded.

What change do you think this will move will bring?

[/quote]

I know their record with their citizens is terrible- so are many countries. But that’s not what we’re concerned about. If we were, we would have gone after Saudi Arabia long ago.

If they are going to let in weapons inspectors again, then we can make progress in the right direction. That country is less dangerous with UN/US inspectors in it looking for nukes. I know the promise is only as good as the person who makes it, but maybe they realized that it’s not worth the international repercussions and bad PR it causes.

It’s worth a shot.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

EDIT: BTW, just for future reference, any time Bush does something that incites praise from guys like you it’s a pretty good bet it’s one of the times he’s abandoned guys like me. The thought was nice though.[/quote]

True. But I don’t like being characterized as someone who hates the just the man. I’ve commended him when I thought it proper, such as this, and his stance on immigration issues, which I support.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

EDIT: BTW, just for future reference, any time Bush does something that incites praise from guys like you it’s a pretty good bet it’s one of the times he’s abandoned guys like me. The thought was nice though.

True. But I don’t like being characterized as someone who hates the just the man. I’ve commended him when I thought it proper, such as this, and his stance on immigration issues, which I support.[/quote]

The reason Mccain is losing this campaign is because he is trying to out liberal Obama. Not only is that damn near impossible, meaning that he will never get Obama voters or left leaning moderates that way, but he is also losing his base and whatever right leaning moderates were favoring him.

I didn’t mean to imply that you hated Mccain personally and or in all cases. My point is that when a liberal thinks he did something right it’s probably because he did something either liberal himself or or something that favors the liberal cause.

For the record, I don’t believe he should be countenancing falsehoods about Obama like the old women who thought he was an Arab. I do however his campaign should be pounding on legitmate questions regarding his anti American radical alliances.

BTW, here’s an example of glaring media bias you’re always asking for. A few people in a crowd of thousands make terrible remarks and the media is all over it even though Mccain had never seen these people before in his life and likely never will again. Obama has long standing alliances with people and organizations that even he now says are despicable and it’s shrugged off.