Murtha Makes the Move… on Moveon
February 16th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |That’s right! Pennsylvania’s maverick congressman Jack Murtha HAS A PLAN: “We’re gonna stop this surge…” That’s what he reportedly said on a video recorded yesterday for Moveon.org.
With the power to oversee Defense appropriations, Murtha HAS A PLAN to put conditions on Bush’s latest 93 billion dollar supplemental boondoggle request for the war:
From CBS…
…he wants to impose new restrictions on how the president can deploy combat forces from the United States to Iraq, allow combat veterans to have at least one year stateside before returning to the frontlines and prevent the Pentagon from keeping soldiers and Marines already in Iraq in uniform after their enlistments expire.
The idea here is simple - restrict the numbers of troops Bush has at his diposal to dispose of…
“This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge,” Murtha predicted of next month’s floor fight over the wartime supplemental appropriation. “We’re trying to force redeployment [of troops outside Iraq], not by taking money away but by redirecting it.”
And the 2002 congressional authorization to go to war was NOT an open-ended invitation for Bush to go to war with whomever he chooses, wherever he chooses. That authorization was ONLY for Iraq. And so Murtha HAS A PLAN for any further lethal, expeditionary mistakes the Decider decides to decide…
“We are looking at the possibility of putting language in the bill that says you can’t go into Iran unless you have authorization [from Congress],” Murtha said.
The RNC has already found their insipid little soundbyte to counter this PLAN: “Slowbleed.” That’s the GOP “PLAN” - more lies. They had no plan to “win” the war in Iraq, to “win” the “war on terror,” or to “win” the prosperity of America, but they always have a PLAN to create cheap rhetorical devices…
“‘Slow bleed’ is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy,” RNC Chairman Mike Duncan wrote in his e-mail, which included a Web link to donate to the GOP.
“Cutting and running is bad enough,’’ he said. “But the Murtha-Pelosi ’slow-bleed’ plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq.”
The National Republican Congressional Committee and Senate Republicans are also preparing to use the “slow-bleed” line in their own news releases, slamming Murtha and the Democrats.
“Slow bleed”, “terrorists,” “Murtha-Pelosi” - this is the GOP: Gaudy Oratorical Party.
Now, of course, you know the sleazy cons will use this as an excuse for the failure of this war when all is said and done, like with Vietnam. After all, this war was “lost” the day Bush took the advice of creepy morons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to go in light and cheap, to disband the infrastrustural institutions of Iraq and leave the physical infrastructure insecure, to disband the Iraqi army and to allow the profiteering of the “rebuilding” of post-war Iraq. But the sleazy cons will say that Bush went in light and cheap to appease the peaceniks, even though the peaceniks had no power or say in 2003 America. The real reasons they went in light and cheap is because it was politically expedient, and because they were too stupid and ignorant - incompetent - to measure the weight of the task before them. And the sleazy cons will say that the “liberals” undermined the effort in the “War on Terror,” while the no-bid contracting of Bush/Cheney/Rummy/AEI-friendly corporations looted the taxpayors and left young Iraqi men out of work, poor, armed, and angry - creating terrorists where none were before. The sleazy cons have a PLAN - blame it on everyone else.
Murtha HAS A PLAN for the sleazy cons too: Fuck ‘em. It’s time to do the right thing regardless of the politcal cost. That’s why Pelosi initially chose him to be the Speaker of the House, instead of the wishy-washy Hoyer. But Murtha’s lapse in the Abscam scandal precluded that - but it won’t preclude this. If anything, we can be glad the sleazy cons jumped on the Murtha scandal, because now Jack has nothing to lose but his conscience, and apparently he’s not going to “lose” that war.
JMJ
23 Responses to “Murtha Makes the Move… on Moveon”
By SteveIL on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
I keep asking, and no one answers. What about Al Qaeda in Iraq? This is the group that attacked the U.S. on 9/11/2001, and which the Congressionally authorized AUMF from 2001 gives the President the authorization to attack them whereever they are, including Iraq. It doesn’t matter if one thinks Al Qaeda wasn’t there in great numbers in 2002 or 2003; they are there now.
Murtha’s plan is to, um, fuck the soldiers, not the politicians. It’s the soldiers who are getting shot at, not the politicians. Those soldiers that get mustered out will not be replaced, according to Murtha’s “plan”, leaving less remaining to fight even the Al Qaeda vermin in Iraq. Less men will mean exponentially more risk to the men remaining. The Republicans aren’t correct when they say this will be a “slow bleed”. It will start that way, then it will be a massive bloodbath. Of American blood. Of the fewer Americans remaining. Thanks to Murtha.
And, he may think he can try to limit Bush on an attack on Iran. Constitutionally, it’s never really been tested, although the D.C. Circuit decided for President Clinton in Campball v. Clinton regarding the military operation in Yugoslavia (The SCOTUS refused to hear the case). The War Powers Resolution alllows a President to do what he wants militarily for a minimum of 60 days, then give a report to Congress for authorization, and, if none is given, have 30 more days to pull out of any action. That’s the statute. In both wars we’ve gone in with Bush, he got authorization first before sending the troops. Even with the War Powers Resolution, the President could send in troops without a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for a longer period of time (Mexico 1916, Nicaragua 1909-1933, Korea, Vietnam), although its never been tested in the courts as far as I know (also, some of these may have had authorizations, but I can’t find the links to those). Presidents have broadly interpreted the Commander in Chief powers defined in Article II, Section 2 when it comes to actually setting strategy, logistics, and troop numbers (usually on advice of the DoD or its predecessor, the War Dept.; Bush may not have followed all of the advice he was given, but that isn’t really relevant to the discussion). The Constitution didn’t want Commanders in Chief to be equal as that would be ridiculous regarding the fighting of a war; in this case, there would be 535 of them.
But this isn’t really about Constitutionality or legislation, or even the troops; it’s about the politics. The Murtha “plan” would probably pass through the House, and then get blocked (filibustered, the Republicans not allowing a vote to end debate) in the Senate, unless enough Republicans go along with it, knowing the potential political ramifications of not voting for it (especially those who will be seeking re-election in 2008). If the House bill gets past the Senate, the bill will most assuredly get vetoed by Bush, sending it back to Congress for an override, requiring a 2/3 “aye” vote in both Houses. And again, the political wrangling will go on and on, and whomever blinks first will lose. Of course, the President will send the reinforcements overseas. Since he won’t be running for re-election, it isn’t really going to politically matter to him.
The ultimate goal for the Democrats (and some Republicans) is to get all American forces out of Iraq right away (forget that logistics argument; they don’t have that kind of Constitutional authority for that), despite the fact that Al Qaeda still has their vermin in Iraq. Instead of Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha just coming out and saying they want the U.S. to surrender to bin Laden, and cutting the funding for the war now, violating campaign promises to do so, and which would be political suicide for them, they would prefer to play games instead of actually trying to win, at least against Al Qaeda, including those in Iraq.
Congress. The are truly playing politics with the lives of our troops engaged in combat, not the President. If they actually cared about winning the wars they’ve authorized these last 6 years, there’s enough political ammunition to throw at Bush to tell him to get the job done. But winning the political battle between two of the branches of the federal government is all that Congress cares about doing, even to the point at putting the troops in the field in worse shape than Bush could ever do.
Tell me again how Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha support the soldiers?
By ken grandlund on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Tell me again how a US AUMF give this country the right to disregard the sovereignity of every other nation on the planet simply because we assert it is so? Because that is what the AUMF that authorizes us to ‘get al-Qaeda wherever they may be’ sounds like to me.
While I do not deride the goal of hunting down al-Qaeda terrorists, I do think that international cooperation is a better way to go than with unilateral wars of choice, especially when that war (Iraq) was not about al-Qaeda in the first place. That there are al-Qaeda in Iraq now is a symptom of Bush’s folly, and using that as an excuse to elevate war activities is like saying, “Well, the tire wasn’t flat when I left the house, but now that it is, I’ll just keep driving on it anyway.”
The make-up of the house today is not the same as it was during the last six years when the rubber stamp republicans forced this war through. So to say that “they’ve” authorized this war for the last six years is quite disingenuous. Even of those who were reelceted, there was not a 100% concensus regarding military action in Iraq…not in the beginning and certainly not as the war waned on.
If American politicians were really interested in defeating terrorists like al-Qaeda, they’d have never been diverted into Iraq from Afghanistan, they would have strengthened bonds with other nations that want to stop terrorism, they’d have used multi-lateral diplomacy with the rest…and so on. Instead, the Bush team and their republican cohorts seemed to only want to get revenge on Saddam while allowing their benefactors to stuff their pockets with US tax dollars.
But hey…tell me again how sending troops into battle without proper training, equipment, or services for the returning wounded or a plan for ending conflict supports the soldiers?
By Jersey McJones on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
“What about Al Qaeda in Iraq? This is the group that attacked the U.S. on 9/11/2001, and which the Congressionally authorized AUMF from 2001 gives the President the authorization to attack them whereever they are, including Iraq. It doesn’t matter if one thinks Al Qaeda wasn’t there in great numbers in 2002 or 2003; they are there now.”
That was not even close to the reason why congress gave the AUMF. “Al Qaeda in Iraq” was NOT the group that attacked us on 9/11. They are a new group that was formed after the invasion, taking advantage of our great folly. They did not exist prior to the invasion. You’d have to have been born yesterday to believe otherwise. Now, that said, yes they are there now. What to do about them? Well, good news! Shiites want nothing to do with them, Sunni insurgents have made it clear they want nothing to do with them either, and they are few in numbers. “Al Qaeda in Iraq” is not significant enough for us to measure our general policy in Iraq by them.
“Less men will mean exponentially more risk to the men remaining. ”
This does not mean “less men.” It means less tours for those men already there. The military will simply have to shift personell differently, rather than back-door drafting National Gaurds who are not supposed to be used as a constant source of expeditionary forces. Maybe Bush should call for a draft. Maybe the military has beeen lying about their wonderful enlistment numbers. Maybe we just don’t have enough people to fight this thing. Maybe we should leave and let the Iraqis work this out for themselves.
“And, he may think he can try to limit Bush on an attack on Iran.”
I think he can, if he can get the congress to preemtively act.
“If they actually cared about winning the wars they’ve authorized these last 6 years, there’s enough political ammunition to throw at Bush to tell him to get the job done.”
They are not the same congress that was there six years ago, and this is not the same war they thought they were allowing.
“Tell me again how Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha support the soldiers?”
By getting them back home to their families and letting screwballs like you sign up if you really want to fight this stupid war.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Ken Grandlund said:
We have the military to do it and nobody with the political will to really stop us. Of course, we’d have to do it in such a way that we don’t piss off the wrong people, which would happen if we invaded Iran or even Sudan. Russia itself has an Al Qaeda problem, but they are actually trying to stop it (unfortunately, it has given Putin to really act more like many think Bush does), as is Saudi Arabia.
Ken Grandlund said:
As I’ve stated, it took 50 years to take care of the Mafia, and they weren’t nearly as powerful (nor as lethal). It’s fine to get international cooperation, if we can get it. Obviously, that didn’t happen in Afghanistan (and not enough in Pakistan either, although we seem to get enough to keep from going there), or more recently, Somalia. And as I said, I believe there was enough Al Qaeda, and enough non-cooperation from Saddam, in Iraq to justify the invasion without all the WMD bullshit. And, I’m not sure the “analogy” you provide is at all apt to this discussion.
Ken Grandlund said:
I’m talking both war resolutions here. And it really doesn’t matter. Congresses change every two years regardless of what’s going on, and those who may vote one way or another on a war may not be in Congress when the war ends. It is still authorized by Congress, regardless of its makeup at a later date.
Ken Grandlund said:
Sorry, that argument isn’t going to work. It’s 2007.
Ken Grandlund said:
Yeah, because in every other war the U.S. was involved in, declared or not, the military was perfectly prepared for every contingency before troops were sent in, and while they were in the field. And it is only because George W. Bush wasn’t President during those wars. Every other President, Madison, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, all had perfectly thought out plans with perfect training, equipment, services, and a plan for ending the conflicts they were involved in. And they supported the soldiers. Other than George W. Bush, the only President in the history of the United States to ever send troops into combat without perfectly thought out plans with perfect training, equipment, services, and a plan for ending the conflicts he was involved in.
By SteveIL on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Jersey, how is the Al Qaeda group in Iraq different than the one anywhere else? That’s like fighting individual Mafia gangs without dealing with ties they do have to each other. And as far as the Shiite terrorists go, they don’t seem to have a problem with slaughtering every single person who is a Sunni Muslim, Arab or otherwise. Regardless if they’re Al Qaeda or not.
As far as troops being shifted, there’s more to Murtha’s plan than you put in (I’ve seen snippets elsewhere), although I don’t have a link to it now. It’s broader than what you show.
No, Murtha can’t limit a President’s authority to attack Iran. Read the court case I provided earlier.
Jersey said:
Right. This one is working on surrender instead of telling Bush to fight it better. This is what the Republicans didn’t do the previous six years. The Democrats don’t even want to do that. And they really don’t seem very interested in bringing the troops home either, because it would be political suicide for them.
Jersey said:
Are they going to tell Bush to move more into Afghanistan? No. They could say to him to transfer the Iraq soldiers home, send units to Europe, then send those in Europe into Afghanistan. I don’t recall that being discussed at all.
Which stupid war, the one against Islamist terrorists (Islamofascists), or just the battlefield that is Iraq? This stupid war, as you call it, started in 1998, although the U.S. government didn’t know it. I didn’t want the war on 9/11, somebody else did. Those 3000 killed on 9/11 weren’t “chickenhawks”, and they ended up being short-lived draftees trying to survive in a war they didn’t ask for (unless you talk to Ward Churchill). So if you mean sending them home to wait for another attack (and neither Bush nor the current Congress seem very intent on protecting the border), I don’t think that is supporting the soldiers either. Nor the rest of us.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
Actually, they should put more troops into Afghanistan. Fortunately, NATO is stepping into that one because they realize that Afghanistan requires the effort for the benefit of that nation and everyone else. Iraq is a different story. It’s history, demographics, and current situation stand in stark contrast to the Afghan situation. Without bothering to continue to repeat the story of the modern history of Iraq, let me just repeat the obvious that most nations want nothing to do with it. It is an unmitigated disaster of monumental proportions and America and somewhat Britain are pretty much stuck with this on our own now. There is no happy solution. There is no bright light at the end of the tunnel. This is going to continue to be a disaster for the long foreseeable future. Murtha’s idea - stepping back from the fighting and letting the Iraqis work this out for themselves - is simply the only realistic way of dealing with the mess. We can’t fight this out for them. We can, however, contain the violence, and assure Iraq’s neighbors that the violence won’t spill over into their lands. We need to assure Turkey and Syria that the Kurds aren’t going to break away and/or make trouble for them. We have to assure sunni Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Jordan that a Shi-a regime can do them no harm. That’s the Murtha PLAN. It sucks. It’s disgusting. It’s tragic. And it’s the only choice we have left. Every single thing the sleazy cons have tried so far has failed, and only made things much, much worse. Face your failure, grow up, be a man, say you’re sorry, and let the realists try to get us out of this quicksand as much as possible. Yes, it sucks, but as you cons are fond of reminding us of where our priorities should be - it’s in our own self interest.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 16, 2007 | Reply
It’s all about the politics. It has only to do with getting the Democrats re-elected in 2008.
By Tom Baker on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
NO it’s about getting the fuck out of an unwinnable situation that people like you created you **^(*^(*^%^*&(
What about AQ in Iraq? Well I guess you should have fucking thought of that before you created that goddamned monster. It’s your parties fucking fault they are there, so now you tell US how your going to rid of them? With the surge? HAHAHA. You’ve have 2 years since Kerry to get rid of them and all you’ve done is breed more of them. YOU”VE doomed this country. YOU. Look in the fucking mirror to see who played poltics with American lives.
You are the disgusting one. No plan to win. No plan for the future. Just keep throwing one more good life after another to try and cover up the mess you created. How many lives will you sacrifice before admitting you were wrong and failed? How many men and women, sons and daughters have to get killed for you arrogance. You fucked up and want the rest of us to pay for it. To bad. If America is humilated sir, you are the reason, not I.
Piss off.
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
What’s wrong, Tom? Afraid of the truth? The Democrats have the majority in Congress today, and they could try to force Bush to surrender by defunding the war and bringing the troops home today. TODAY!!! That is why you, and many others here, voted for them, right? Regardless of destroying the Al Qaeda creatures in Iraq; the potential for genocide that Shiite Arabs could perpetrate against the Sunni Arabs (or Sunni Kurds for that matter), with help from the Iranian government, a possibly worse genocide than the “Killing Fields” in Cambodia (which Pol Pot would’ve done regardless of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia) or the Holocaust during WWII; or even the possibility of a new shooting war between the primarily Sunni Arab nations of Saudi Arabia and Jordan with Iran, in order to protect the Sunni Arabs in Iraq (not to mention Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds); not to mention our fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan; the goal is to get the American troops out of Iraq now. And instead of working on getting American forces out of Iraq right away, as you elected them to do, the Democrats are playing politics to get elected in 2008. That’s it. It isn’t to “support the troops”, it isn’t to “say we won and let’s go home”. It’s to win an election against the only people they know how to fight, other Americans. That’s what is disgusting.
Sen. Dodd (D-CT) recently spoke on the Senate floor about getting NATO involved, possibly with American troops, in stopping the Islamofascist genocide in Darfur since that great promoter of science, the UN, refuses to really do anything. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the Chinese government, who loves our money by selling us their goods and equally loves their oil contracts with the Sudanese government, possibly being really pissed off if the American military sets one foot in Sudan. Do you honestly think the Democrats would have the balls to stand up to the Chinese government, or even the Islamofascist government and terrorists in Sudan if they start shooting at our troops? And, do you honestly think the American people are going to send American forces in harm’s way again in a struggle that is not about national security?
I wanted Bush to fight this war better, I really did. He didn’t. I want the Democratic majority in Congress to tell Bush to fight this war better. They won’t. I don’t have a problem looking into the mirror. As I said the day after the election, this is now Pelosi’s and Reid’s war. It is up to them to tell Bush what to do, whether it is to win it, or to surrender. Instead they play politics. Only to win the next election. All the while, the troops are still battling with the enemy. It is your turn now to look into the mirror.
Welcome to hell.
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
I forgot the past Congresses (since 2001) where I wanted the Republican majority to tell Bush to fight this war better. They didn’t. Nobody is off the hook on this.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
“…this is now Pelosi’s and Reid’s war.”
Passing the buck - the final refuge of scoundrels.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think so Jersey. Pelosi and Reid hold the “Aces”, the purse strings. You don’t like the truth? Who is then the scoundrel and who is taking refuge?
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
You are. You and all the rest of the selfish cons who voted for the sleazy GOP majority. Pelosi and Reid cannot, constitutionally, run a war. They do control the purse strings, and they do not want to leave the troops to scramble out of their shooting behind their backs. That leaves the Murtha plan, or something like it. Arrange the funding in such a way as to make this as painless as possible. This is not about “winning” or “losing” anymore. This is about stopping the bleeding as best as possible.
Truth? Not only can’t you “handle it,” you don’t even know what it is.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Jersey said:
How can you say one thing and then another? Murtha’s plan is exactly saying that Congress should run the war. They can, constitutionally, tell Bush to run the war better, or tell him to surrender and defund it in its entirety. They, the Democrats, are more afraid of Republicans and would rather put up meaningless, and in some cases unconstitutional, resolutions in order to win the next election. That’s it. That is the truth. If you don’t believe, that is your problem.
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
I’m watching the Senate debate on C-SPAN. Dianne Feinstein is putting forth a resolution to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq at the end of the year. At least she’s got more guts than Murtha in proposing outright surrender. Of course, she is from San Francisco, which won’t even allow the battleship Missouri, the ship where peace came with the Japanese surrender to the United States to end WWII. Surrender to terrorists is easy for politicians from San Francisco. The only war they fight is against the United States military that truly protects their “San Francisco values”.
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Sorry. The city government of San Francisco will not allow the battleship Missouri to be permanently based there.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Eh, whatever. San Fran can do whatever it wants.
Surrender to terrorists? That’s a good one! LOL! Surrender what? Does Iraq now belong to America? Are we now officially an Empire? Get real.
Just more cheap sound bytes.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Aren’t you amusing, Jersey? No, Iraq does not belong to America. That would be a leftist’s interpretation. I mean surrender to the terrorists, to those Al Qaeda in Iraq, that we can’t beat them there (even though everybody knows we can), and that we will let them keep the parts of Iraq they are in. That is until the Shiite terrorists and their Iranian overlords decide to try to take out all the Sunni Arabs, regardless if they are Al Qaeda or not.
You get real.
To clarify, Feinstein (D-Haight Ashbury) wants troops removed from Iraq by putting an end to the Iraq AUMF from 2002. She wants to leave enough targets, I mean advisors, there to continue to train the Iraqi military and police. Actually, I think targets is the more appropriate word. So, the targets will remain until they too are dead or the Democratic majority in Congress pulls them out as well.
Biden (D-DE) came on the floor later and said Bush has to get real and bring in the regional powers to negotiate, eh, something, and get the Iraqi government to run their country as he interprets their constitution to say. That’s a bit more constructive than either Feinstein’s surrender and Murtha’s pure politicking, although if there are negotiations, I would think we should be allowed to discuss Iran and Syria’s involvement in Hezbollah’s coup to take over Lebanon.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Murtha has little to gain for politicking this, so your argument makes little sense. The congress can not make foreign policy, but they can pull on the purse strings.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Murtha has plenty to gain, remaining in Congress mostly, and all of the perks that go with it. It also helps his family that he remain in Congress. You’re second sentence, however, is correct. But, the new Democratic majority is trying to do that too, although without quite the same forcefulness. Before the Democrats did take the majority, they were awfully mouthy about how Bush should deal with North Korea bilaterally. Good thing he didn’t listen to them, especially since he didn’t have to, and they were wrong to think multilateral talks would fail. However, Craig has looked into this deal more and probably has a better idea of how good (or not) the new North Korea
deal is.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Oh please, the NK’s do this all the time. They probably just had yet another miserable, starving winter and need to buy some time and relief.
As for what Murtha has to gain - this is a lose/lose political situation. Nobody wins getting involved with this. Pull out the troops? Get blamed for the failure. Support the war? get blamed for failure. Stay away from the subject? Spare your political career.
You need to better understand the nature of American politics.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
Jersey said:
Yes and no. This time I think they actually signed something. Whether it’s good, or just the start of something better, or if it just sucks, remains to be seen.
Jersey said:
Not for Murtha. He gets to look like he’s doing something the anti-war people like, without really worrying that it will be passed or not. It’s Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s jobs to get it on the floor, not Murtha’s. And since neither Murtha, Pelosi, or Hoyer are running for anything other than their current House seats in 2008, all that matters is that they keep doing what they did to keep those seats in 2006. It’s about appearances. That’s what a lot of politics is all about.
Jersey said:
I think I’ve already figured out the nature of politics in America in the current political climate.
By Jersey McJones on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, the NK’s have signed all sorts of stuff. Every time they have yet another bad, Communist winter, they come out with all sorts of offers. When China finally gets completely fed up with them, that’ll be the end of that. Modern economies have no interest in small-world dictatorships. They’re unreliable. They don’t mean shit in the REAL world, man. Find something significant to worry about.
JMJ