Carter correct on North Korea

Dr. Paul Kengor’s recent editorial, “Duped again on North Korea,” presented a rather bizarre interpretation of former President Jimmy Carter’s success in negotiating with North Korea and his portrayal of Carter as unaware of the poverty and starvation in the country is completely false. I personally track North Korea and write weekly reports for him detailing the harsh conditions in the country.

Far from Dr. Kengor’s characterization of Carter having an incredibly gullible appraisal of conditions in the country during the recent famine, the Carter Center closely monitored the situation and was repeatedly denied permission to enter the country and implement the agricultural programs that the Center has been successful with in 29 African countries.

In 1989, the CIA discovered the North Koreans were building a reprocessing facility near their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon for the purpose of converting the fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium.

After the North Koreans withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, removed the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the reactor facility and began moving the fuel rods, President Clinton had the Department of Defense draw up plans to send an additional 50,000 troops along with 400 combat aircraft, 50 ships, battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley tanks, multiple-launch rockets and Patriot missiles into the region.

Under an agreement with the Clinton administration, former President Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and negotiated the 1994 Agreed Framework under the terms of which the North Koreans agreed to abide by the terms of the NPT, lock up the fuel rods again and allow the IAEA inspectors back in to monitor the nuclear reactor facility. This agreement held for eight years.

By September of 2002, the CIA became convinced that the North Koreans had begun acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium. It is debatable as to whether this violated the 1994 Agreed Framework which dealt with the Yongbyon reactor fuel rods and the reprocessing of plutonium, but it was a clear violation of the NPT.

Although the development of nuclear weapons from enriching uranium is far more complex than reprocessing the plutonium in the reactor fuel rods and even though analysts thought the North Koreans were decades away from production of nuclear weapons using enriching uranium, on Oct. 20, 2002, the Bush administration, with the hearty approval of Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, announced that the United States was abrogating the 1994 Agreed Framework. Dr. Kengor undoubtedly approved.

The North Koreans responded by expelling the IAEA inspectors, restarting the reactor at Yongbyon, and unlocking the fuel rods. In January of 2003, the North Koreans withdrew from the NPT.

In February 2005, the North Korean government announced that they had produced nuclear weapons. Traces of the fallout from the weapon detonated by the North Koreans in October of 2006 proved that it was indisputably produced from the plutonium reprocessed from the Yongbyon reactor fuel rods. Fuel rods that had the 1994 Agreed Framework been followed would have been removed from North Korea.

The next time Dr. Kengor is at his office at the Center for Strategic & International Studies he might pick up the CSIS PakNet 52 Bulletin “Assessing Blame” which discusses the North Korean development of nuclear weapons and reports, “Clinton did all he could and enjoyed some success; the Agreed Framework did freeze Pyongyang’s known plutonium assets for a significant period of time. Otherwise, North Korea could have stockpiled perhaps 10 times as much plutonium as it is currently believed to possess.”

Had the incredibly naive policies Dr. Kengor advocates been followed during the Clinton administration, North Korea might now have up to 80 nuclear weapons.

Dr. Kengor laments that delusion has exacerbated an already complex situation. He is right but he is the one who has been duped by the delusion that these types of situations can simply be wished away by empty posturing and threats.

He embraces the neoconservative’s foreign policy philosophy of no diplomatic engagement with rogue regimes despite the repeated failure of their implementation of those policies in the real world with not a single success.

Once the other side decides to ignore their blustering, they have no other options and are completely befuddled as to how to proceed; reflected in Dr. Kengor’s admission that he has no answers to the North Korean problem.

Of course he doesn’t.

The failure in North Korea is not Jimmy Carter’s. The development of nuclear weapons by the North is a direct result of rejecting the Agreed Framework Carter negotiated and of following the impotent policies championed by Dr. Kengor.

Jeff Carter

Peachtree City, Ga.

[Jeff Carter most recently traveled with his father, former President Jimmy Carter, to North Korea in August 2010, according to the Carter Center in Atlanta (www.cartercenter.org).]

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Thank you Jeff Carter

Hearing more than one side to an issue is always welcome. To those who care to learn the truth, conduct your own research into any situation. If one is sincere in finding solutions to problems, there is no need to 'spin' the truth. I have been saddened at the neo-conservative attempt to sway/control the thoughts of others by purposely 'adjusting' facts and spinning and often telling ‘untruths’ Examples: The Sherrod case; the religion of our President; the birthplace of our President, etc., etc., etc. In today's media, the neo-conservatives are not the only ones guilty of the practice of’ spinning facts or ignoring’ facts. With today's technology, anyone can research any issue and get information and/or 'spins' from many sources.

Quote:

He embraces the neoconservative’s foreign policy philosophy of no diplomatic engagement with rogue regimes despite the repeated failure of their implementation of those policies in the real world with not a single success. Once the other side decides to ignore their blustering, they have no other options and are completely befuddled as to how to proceed; reflected in Dr. Kengor’s admission that he has no answers to the North Korean problem.

The Carter Center, The Library of Congress, the writings of many of our leading military leaders have a wealth of information that supports the importance of our Department of State and our foreign diplomats. Diplomacy still saves lives.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Progressives never do that

spin or "adjust" facts as you say. Only the Right. OK.

btw- that birther bs was started by a Progressive for Progressives. Clinton's campaign started it. But then again massaging the facts never happen on the Left.

His Article found here in it's entirety.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values.
http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulKengor/2010/11/29/duped_on_north_kore...

Here is an excerpt:

"In June 1994, Carter visited North Korea, hosted by Kim Il Sung. For the impressionable ex-president, Kim provided the full Potemkin village treatment. To say Carter was fooled is an understatement. Carter reported:

People are busy. They work 48 hours a week…. We found Pyongyang to be a bustling city. The only difference is that during working hours there are very few people on the street. They all have jobs or go to school. And after working hours, they pack the department stores, which Rosalynn visited. I went in one of them. It’s like Wal-Mart in American stores on a Saturday afternoon. They all walk around in there, and they seem in fairly good spirits. Pyongyang at night looks like Times Square. They are really heavily into bright neon lights and pictures and things like that.

Of course, in truth, North Korea is draped in darkness, as well-known satellite photos attest (click here). Worse, within just one year of Carter’s incredibly gullible appraisal, 10-15 percent of North Korea’s population (two to three million people) starved to death, the worst famine in modern times.

Adding insult to injury, a few years after that, North Korea announced it was a nuclear state, a direct violation of the “Agreed Framework” brokered by Carter in 1994. Then, Carter had triumphantly assured “the crisis is over”—words headlined by the New York Times and Washington Post.

Needless to say, the crisis was far from over."

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
What's your point OOU?

Dr. Kengor is simply wrong. I suspect that he is intentionally so. I was in Pyongyang in August and it seemed to be quite a bustling city as you would expect of a city of over 3 million people. I visited several shopping centers and there were products on the shelves and people shopping. Pyongyang is lit up like a Christmas tree with neon lights framing hundreds of buildings. Exactly as described. Dr. Kengor doesn't dispute this, he just intentionally and erroneously applies statements about Pyongyang to the whole country and then states that Carter is wrong, based only on Kengor's own deliberate misrepresentations.

Eight years after the Agreed Framework was signed, it was revoked by the Bush administration and the fuel rods that were covered by the agreement were then reprocessed into nuclear weapons. These facts are indisputable and apparently annoying to the neo-conservatives.

Kengor also states that after Carter's incredibly gullible appraisal, millions died in the famine. You might notice that Kengor pulled that alleged appraisal out of his... hat. Carter made no such appraisal at all regarding the famine (which occurred two years later).

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff there is no point

I expect no less from the son of President Carter. (Not a dig a compliment) Your take as well as your Father's is a point of view the left has shared for years. I disagree is all.

Our failure with N. Korea is taking shape even as they lob more shells at S. Korea. They have 2000 centrifuges they proudly show off and are they worried about what we will do. Not hardly.

"Robert Carlin and two other Stanford University nuclear experts were recently invited to North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear facility, and what they saw there rocked them on their heels.

"It's going to drop like a bombshell," Carlin said. "We walked over to the window and we were suddenly surprised to see row after row after row of centrifuges. The North Koreans say it was 2,000. It was a lot.""

http://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-advertising-stunning-adv...

I voted for Mr. Carter. I defend his policies.
However I also suffered through the 22% inflation, the Oil embargo, the fuel shortages, the 444 days of the Hostage crisis. Giving away the Panama Canal etc.

I just don't believe "talking" to despots and dictators is very productive. Appeasement has never worked. Jimmy Carters philosophy of appeasement is well known.

Carter was not alone in the failure of North Korea but a lot of the responsibility is his.

"It is not often that I am struck speechless by any individual act of political commentary. Yet, former President Jimmy Carter accomplished just that through a recent editorial in the Washington Post. To put it bluntly, the article is a poignant example of what appeasement looks like in black and white. Of course, "appeasement" is a strong word, viewed as name-calling; but it is a descriptive term that I have studied at length, and that applies here."
"In a nutshell, Mr. Carter’s argument is that North Korea’s recent actions merely confirm that “Pyongyang is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953.”

Did you catch that? It’s not a misprint. North Korea’s recent revelation of increased uranium enrichment and deadly bombing of targets in South Korea are not the erratic and dangerous provocations of the most erratic, dangerous and provocative regime on the planet. Rather, they are actually “consistent messages” to the West of a readiness to acquiesce."
http://www.chipleypaper.com/articles/carter-7915-jimmy-wrong.html

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Muccio is speechless OOU? Who cares? He's an idiot.

I am unmoved by Dr. R.B.A. Di Muccio's article. I expect Dr. Kengor's associates at Grove city College to support him. That's what Grove City College and The Center for Vision & Values exist for. What Muccio sees as appeasement appears to the rest of the world as diplomacy.

I have tracked North Korea for almost ten years. And yes, I believe that "North Korea’s recent revelation of increased uranium enrichment and deadly bombing of targets in South Korea are not the erratic and dangerous provocations of the most erratic, dangerous and provocative regime on the planet. Rather, they are actually “consistent messages” to the West of a readiness to acquiesce." North Korea wants a negotiated end to the Korean War and they want trade restrictions lifted. They are puffing themselves up trying to appear more important than they are so that the US will negotiate with them. Whether we should or not is a different consideration, but that is their objective.

Both Kengor and Muccio refuse to admit that the Agreed Framework held for eight years until abrogated by the Bush administration and that North Korea's nuclear weapons were developed from the fuel rods that the Agreed Framework had locked up. And there is very simple reason for this. Their policies were implemented and the resulting abject failure resulted in the development of nuclear weapons by the North. There has never been a successful implementation of the neo-conservative ideology in foreign policy.

However, my biggest complaint with the neo-conservative philosophy is this. Their only solution is war. If we are not willing to go to war with North Korea, then they are left with nothing but impotent bluster. Diplomacy is appeasement so they cannot use that channel. But once North Korea rejects their empty threats, they turn out to be embarrassing paper tigers reduced to bemoaning how difficult the situation is.

Their philosophy is bankrupt, ineffective, naive, and dangerous. It's a stark contrast to Carter's success.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff just want you to know how much I appreciate

a civil debate. We are on the opposite poles on this, sort of, and yet we can have a conversation/debate without insults and rancor.

The time for intervention has long past. Holding S. Korea back is now the issue. Much like we held back Israel as Iraq lobbed Skud Missiles into their Country.

Kim Jong is, well to put it bluntly, a NUTJOB! Dealing with him or his soon to be installed son is worthless. Ever since Carter secured promises from him to not enrich Nuclear fuel in return for trading rights and Nuclear power stations he has continued to take it and then go ahead with his plans for Nuclear dominance in the region.

He acts up we give him things. Just like a child he has learned all he has to do is threaten World security and bam here we come with a new treaty of more money.

This is where the policy of appeasement fails. If we deal with a leader that really has their people's best interest at heart then appeasement can work. However when you deal with dictators and despots they could not care less about the people they care about the power and their own enrichment.

Iraq was a good example. Look how much Money and goods the US sent to Saddam to appease him. He lived in Palaces his people lived in shacks.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I somewhat disagree OOU

Kim Jong-il is not a nutjob. That's part of his facade. He is consistent, although in a bizarre way. This is my confidential analysis so don't spread it around: This whole crisis, starting with the sinking of the South Korean warship on March 26 and including the artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island is a training exercise by Kim Jong-il for Kim Jong-un. It's very complex with the Kim's playing on the political front with China and internally with the military. First the provocation, then the Richardson visit which signals an opening to the negotiation stage. This time, the negotiation phase will ultimately fail because the provocation was too extreme. Mid(ish) next year, they will test another nuclear weapon. This shows military might while being completely internal so the diplomats will howl while the foreign military has no real reason to attack. A massive provocation and threat with no harm done and no consequences.

lookout2011
lookout2011's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
Famous last words....

..."no harm done and no consequences."

They need a war and Chinese aid!

But, let us allow the north and south to do the fighting. That is their economy!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff agreed

You may well be correct. You have access to info we do not. I sincerely hope you are correct. A new War now would most likely devastate the already weakened economy.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Iraq-N Korea

The problem in your comparison is that Iraq/Saddam was hated by almost all of its regional neighbors. It also didn't help that we fully supported Saddam and turned our heads the other way when he used chemical weapons on his own people because he was an "enemy of our enemy(Iran) so he's our friend."

North Korea is backed by the 900lb gorilla in China and there isn't a helluva lot you can do in dealing with N Korea on any level without Chinese support, something that they don't feel is generally in their own best interest as they do not in any way want to see a unified Korea sitting on their borders, nor do they want the millions and millions of starving refugees flooding into their country. for China, they prefer status quo with N Korea and trying to convince them to even gently nudge or say "quit being a bad boy" to Jong is a pipe-dream.

Anyone with a workable and realistic solution in dealing with a lunatic tyrant and a mighty superpower that has a lot of control over our own economy and currency, please forward your ideas to everyone else who has yet to figure out how to do anything besides either 6 nation talks that have done nothing or giveaways that have also done nothing.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nuk agreed

The failure started years ago. We started the policy of appeasement and never stopped.

Now it is far too late. The problem of course is Kim knows it and will let us know it every chance he can.

You start paying for protection(peace)it never stops.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mission Accomplished - Remember?

. . .and thanks for sharing the conservative Townhall.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mission Accomplished. Of course I remember

Bush was referring to the ship's mission - not the country's. Banner was certainly not put in the best place.

The liberal bias of the press was on full display after that one.

Nevertheless, this mission - meaning keeping nuclear weapons out of North Korea is far from over. We all know that 1 stealth bomber mission is all that is needed, but first we need a leader with courage and we have to make some backchannel nice with China so there is no blowback from there.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Really Robert W?

Let's assume that China is willing to turn a blind eye to our stealth bomber and that a leader with courage magically appears. Exactly how many nuclear weapons does North Korea have and where are they?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Really Jeff, yes indeed

I guess somebody like Nixon who was given credit for opening relations with China. Not sure he's electable in 2012, but he would still be a better leader than Prezbo.

I doubt North Korea has any nuclear weapons ready to deploy just yet or we would have seen them take out Seoul already. But I have no doubt that we have an eye in the sky 24/7 over their processing facilities and know exactly where they all are. We probably don't have anyone on the ground because of the damage Sen. Church and his committee did to the CIA in the 1970's, but South Korea whose leadership is never swayed by liberal pantywaist politicians probably has some spies imbedded in the north as an early warning measure.

And I would hope that a B-2 attack (preferrably by AV 14) on NK is all planned and practised and ready to go at a moment's notice. This administration won't do it, so it is just a question of which country gets their act together first - us with a real leader or North Korea with their nuclear program. 25 months in case anyone needs reminding. After all, if we can invade Iraq because a crazy dictator might have nuclear materials (according to British intelligence) why can't we take out a known processing facility under the control of a for-certain crazy dictator? What's the downside? Some temporary global warming?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I seriously doubt it Robert

Recently, the West was very surprised when North Korea revealed a new centrifuge plant. South Korean defense minister Kim Tae Young was forced to resign on November 26, three days after the attack on Yeonpyeong Island because of the failure of his ministry's intelligence network to anticipate the attack. These real world events cast doubt on your supposition that we have adequate intelligence to know exactly where all of their reprocessing plants are much less on the location of every weapon in their arsenal.

As to Sen. Church and the CIA, people in North Korea do not travel around. It is almost impossible for a stranger to enter an area unnoticed. We never had a spy network in the country to be disrupted.

Your solution to bomb them is impractical. We could never be sure that every weapon and facility was destroyed. You have fallen into the exact same trap that the neo-conservatives find themselves in. If you can't or won't go to war, you have no viable alternatives and are left only with bluster about stealth bombers.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Well, Jeff

Surely these machos around here won't Ag us into a third or fourth Viet Nam! This is where we send a few soldiers, get them trapped, send a few more, get them trapped, send a few more with a coalition, get them trapped, then send a bunch more--but not nearly enough---hold the enemy until we can get out by bombing, bombing, bombing and orange juicing them!

Or we could bomb first and let the enemy escape with their weapons, occupy, find the top dude, hang him, and then leave without any oil or money,

Or, we could in Afghanistan, let them aggravate and Irritate for 8-9 years, get organized, and then we go after them with one-tenth enough occupiers, and a coalition of Polish. They hide in "tribal" areas like Geronimo did here, and our coalition of Pakistan and 26 French start bombing them again.

Or we could have decided 10 years ago if wiping out the training camps in Afghanistan and no-flying Saddam was adequate and never left Turkey.

Or, we could have declared war on both of them and Pakistan, bombed hell out of them while we trained 2-3 million troops and invaded and occupied.
With a coalition of Russians.

Might have taken three years.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Yea Jeff, take that

Hard to argue with all those reasoned facts, isn't it?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mud: Jeff doesn't participate in blunt....

......Facts---only in proper diplomatic sentences. He won't say anything.

Blunt-force, bludgeoning, blood-divas--still pure!
Tested to death, hounded at home, there is no cure.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Morgan & Mission Accomplished

Of course former President Bush had nothing to do with the banner--it was the idea and work of the ship's crew--he knew nothing about it until they landed on the carrier.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mission Accomplished

This is from a 2003 WH presser but the old link to whitehouse.gov is no good now - I pulled it from DU archives.

Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?

THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way. But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international help and aid and comfort, and just kill.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Interestingly AtHomeGym

Yes AHG. The ship personnel originally proposed the banner and it was subsequently approved by the White House Press Secretary. While the "White House" had coordinated with the Navy over the banner, as would be their job, the odds that President Bush knew anything about such a mundane matter approach zero. The unfavorable reporting linked the banner with President Bush's shipboard speech in which he declared major combat operations were over. But that was in retrospect. The criticism and linkage to the banner came much later, after the unexpected insurgency in Iraq. When Bush was on the ship on May 1, 2003, nobody thought that he thought that the Iraq mission had been accomplished.

Interestingly, the Bush Presidential Museum has recently apparently been successful in obtaining the banner itself and they will be displaying it at the Museum as part of the Iraq exhibit. It's an important and, whatever political significance you assign it, darn interesting and historic item. Congratulations to them for acquiring it! I hope that hundreds of years from now, people will be able to see it and argue about it. It's a piece of American history.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Who kowns, Gym boy??

Do you?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
R. Morgan
Quote:

we have to make some backchannel nice with China so there is no blowback from there.

Ya think so????? LOL

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Morgon

Now I know that you aren't worth commenting about! It is not that you are of a different persuasion, it is that you are simple!
As to the banner, Bush really thought all was over--he was intent on punishing someone for his daddy and that is all.
Why was the press all liberal about it? Because it was stupid. They report stupidity.

A leader with courage and one stealth bomber huh? Mission Accomplished!

No Chinese blow-back, huh? Stupid.

You could be dangerous if taken seriously. Gumeby

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
You are welcome.

Just like you say all the time DM. Just another point of view.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Interesting Observerofu

Please post your 'facts' regarding Clinton's campaign starting the 'birther bs

By the way - This is what I said:

Quote:

In today's media, the neo-conservatives are not the only ones guilty of the practice of’ spinning facts or ignoring’ facts. With today's technology, anyone can research any issue and get information and/or 'spins' from many sources.'

Read, comprehend, and stop reacting so personally to comments. You are not the only one in discussions that has a different point of view.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well DM here you go

From the Huffington Post:

Obama is a Muslim story started by a Democrat:

The man Allen found who takes credit for the first posting of an article falsely asserting Obama is a Muslim is a man named Andy Martin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/false-obama-muslim-rumor_n_1097...

From the TIMES:

Michelle's racist rant against Whitey:

According to campaign officials, what finally launched Obama into a full rumor counteroffensive was a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson. Quoting "someone in touch with a senior Republican," Johnson claimed that there was a video of Michelle Obama "blasting 'whitey' during a rant at Jeremiah Wright's church." (Later versions of the rumor had Michelle's "rant" happening at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition conference.) No such videotape has surfaced.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1813663,00.html#ixzz18B...

Drum roll please:

The Birther birth:
Now comes disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters who have tacked sown the best that they can, Barack Obama's birth history. Some have pointed out that he may have a Kenya, US, and Indonesia citizenship. They argue that Obama may not have been born in Hawaii as reported. That the Birth Certificate posted by the Daily Kos is a fake and Obama was born outside of the United States. NowPublic Writer BMCWrites wrote an article specifically about the Obama Birth Ceritificate. Thus giving the Clinton Supporters and argument that since Obama is not a naturally born citizen, he too is not eligible to be the president. Therefore, Hillary, should be nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/clinton-supporters-claim-obama-not-natura...

btw- Just countering propaganda as I see it DM. Nothing personal. You ascerted that the Right spins facts. Yes we do sometimes but the Left is guilty as well.
Remember you also said:

Davids mom wrote:

I have been saddened at the neo-conservative attempt to sway/control the thoughts of others by purposely 'adjusting' facts and spinning and often telling ‘untruths’ Examples: The Sherrod case; the religion of our President; the birthplace of our President, etc., etc., etc.

Just pointing out a little morning hypocrisy.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Wrong again OOU

"Obama is a Muslim story started by a Democrat"

Got anything to back that up? In the last twenty years Andy Martin has run in eleven political campaigns:

Governor of Florida, 1990 (Republican primary), U.S. House from Florida, 1992 (Republican primary), Florida State Senate, 1996 (unsuccessful Republican nominee), U.S. Senator from Florida, 1998 (Republican primary), President of the United States, 2000] (Republican primary), U.S. Senator from Florida, 2000 (unsuccessful independent candidate), U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2004 (Republican primary), U.S. Senator from Florida, 2004 (Republican primary), Governor of Illinois, 2006 (Republican primary), U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2008 (Republican primary), U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2010 (Republican primary).

That track record doesn't look like a Democrat to me.

justwondering
justwondering's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2006
who started Obama not natural born citizen ?

Many Democratic women supported Hillary Clinton and when Obama got nomination they looked for ways to get him removed. A young female Annapolis grad posted the non natural born idea and encouraged folks to help spread the theory. This is all documented in the book " Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America " by John Avlon.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff you are correct

Andy Martin has run as a Republican. Thankfully no one wants him either.

Got my articles mixed up. Thanks for the correction and the civil smack down.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Be careful Jeff!

ObserverofU lies so often that most of the time he doesn't even realize he's doing it. If you push him, I'm sure he could "prove" that President Carter had no children....and that the New York Times backs him up.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
You can always tell when a

You can always tell when a liberal has lost the debate; they cease trying to wear you down with endless politically correct irrelevancies and resort to sarcasm, insult, and innuendo.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Funny how you are never able to produce

those lies. You just keep saying it though. Say it often enough and even you might start to believe it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observrofu - Thanks for proving my point.
Quote:

With today's technology, anyone can research any issue and get information and/or 'spins' from many sources.

'

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Carter on North Korea

Jeff, I really appreciate your efforts to enlighten us. A big thank you to you and your father from the carbonunit for all of your work with conflict resolution and furthering the evolution of mankind.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Paul Kengor

Paul Kengor is the living epitome of "Party First, Country Second".

Neoconservative trash like Kengor won't be happy until the world is reduced to a glowing ball of nuclear waste.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Why Bacon

are you afraid that the crowning achievement of your political philosophy, North Korea, may be destroyed by their own self destructive behavior?

Recent Comments