North Korean leader Kim Jong endorses John Kerry

Well ain't this just fitting. The North Korean dictator has thrown in his (most likely unwanted) support for John Kerry.

So the question is does this Does North Korea want Kerry because they think he will be nice to them like Clinton giving them a nuclear reactor to play with? Is there something here we don't know?

I also think that this speaks volumes for how tough Bush is on Terrorism and North Korean Nukes.

North Korea is staunchly in the "anybody but George W. Bush" camp in the U.S. election, but South Korean critics of the president say Pyongyang would be unwise to stall nuclear talks and hope for "regime change" in Washington.

North Korea's stance at nuclear talks with the United States in Beijing last week -- where it refused to discuss a secret uranium enrichment program at the heart of a nuclear arms dispute -- has prompted speculation Pyongyang will wait out the November 2 vote for a better deal if Bush loses.


South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper captured this view in a cartoon that showed a jubilant North Korean leader Kim Jong-il calling expected Democratic Party nominee John Kerry's campaign headquarters and asking: "Is there anything I can do to help?"

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20040305/ts_nm/korea_north_kerry_dc_1

I'm sure Kim wants Kerry for the same reason most of us do....

Anybody BUT Bush!!!

I'd rather have someone who's stance I wasn't sure on, than somebody I KNEW hated me, if I was Kim...

Yeah if I was Kim I would think the same way. But I am an American and I want to have a President that hates Kim.

I would think Kim would want any Democrat,than Bush. The world knows it can get away with a lot of crap when a dem is in office. Plus he probably figures he might be able to get more nuculear power.

Kinda the same as when Reagan was in office. I am quite sure that the Russians did not want Reagan to win a second term.

Originally posted by nyeff
I would think Kim would want any Democrat,than Bush. The world knows it can get away with a lot of crap when a dem is in office. Plus he probably figures he might be able to get more nuculear power.

Kinda the same as when Reagan was in office. I am quite sure that the Russians did not want Reagan to win a second term.

I agree 100% and this is the kind of thing that Democrats don't want to be reported.

Didn't the KGB try to help Carter?

I think it's clear though, our nations enemies love having a democrat in office.

I don't see why we give a damn and six pence who Kim supports in the first place. He can't vote and if I were John Kerry, I'm not sure I'd view it as a good thing to have his support. This sends me the message that Kerry is too much into appeasement of the enemies of the US. For the life of me, I can't understand why our democratic party has to pick the extremists to send to the election.

Of course Kim is going to support anyone who stands a chance against Bush, whether it be Dem or another. Bush is not giving Kim what he wants, but thats not to say that Kerry by default will. Who knows, maybe Kerry will be tougher on Kim then Bush is. Its all speculation.

nobody wants bush to be president again! even if osama is caught, i still won't vote for him. it's not like he's the one who went out to look for him. it was the soldier who'll drag osama's sorry ass out not bush! so no matter what, im voting for kerry!

Originally posted by nyeff
I would think Kim would want any Democrat,than Bush. The world knows it can get away with a lot of crap when a dem is in office. Plus he probably figures he might be able to get more nuculear power.

Kinda the same as when Reagan was in office. I am quite sure that the Russians did not want Reagan to win a second term.

what about the atomic bomb that was dropped in japan? a DEMOCRAT ordered those bombs to be dropped.

I always love reading Gazrok's replys

Kerry was in the Vietnam war... Just because Kerry doesn't want to be like Bush and start a war doesn't mean the U.S is going to be looking like a bunch of pussies.

Remember the Iran hostage issue? How quick they gave baqck the hostages after a republican got elected? The world pretty much dreads trigger happy republicans in office.

Which can be a good thing, or a bad thing. A Republican like Bush is a bad thing. Too bad the republican party didnt pick someone else. Im not sure iof Kerry would be a pussy. He isnt as far left as Dean was, maybe he wont be a pussy. He is skull and bones, after all! Just like Dubya.

This is merely a snubbing of Bush due to NK being labeled as part of the "Axis of Evil".

The hostages in Iran were released under regans watch simply becuase they did not want to appear to be appeasing the US. Reagan did nothing to get them released, he had only been in a office a short time.

Also if I remember right Clinton was more than willing to bomb Iraq (something the republicans threw in our face during the march to war) but republicans seem to have forgotten that now, calling Dems weak on national defense.

Give me a break!

Thats orecisely the point, native. Regan didnt need to do anything but get elected. The Iranians knew with a Republican in office, that foreign policy would be alot less favorable towards them. Everyone in the world knows that Republicans keep the military on a thin leash, and pretty much will attack, threaten, ect on a whim. Iran got rid of the hostages because it didnt wanna deal with republican style diplomacy.

Clinton bombed alot of countries, but almost all of those stupid wars were "peacekeeping" missions with allies or for NATO. Khobar towers were bombed, the USS cole, the embassy bombiungs, all direct attacks against American assets and forces overseas, and Clinton didnt lift a finger or raise his voice, and thus, investigations were blown off.

Just curious, what was Clinton suposed to do? Bush did nothing until 9/11. If 9/11 had occured when Clinton was in office do you really believe he would not have gone to Afghanistan? Seriously what did Bush do before 9/11? NOTHING, not a damn thing.

Sorry but Bush did one thing right, he fought the Taliban and Osama but not until 9/11. Iraq was his pet project and he got it by driving it under the umbrella of 9/11.

I don't think ANY president would allow an even like 9/11 to have gone without response but to say Bush was better is just wrong, he jsut happened to be on watch when the bad things happened.

Originally posted by silQ

Originally posted by nyeff
I would think Kim would want any Democrat,than Bush. The world knows it can get away with a lot of crap when a dem is in office. Plus he probably figures he might be able to get more nuculear power.

Kinda the same as when Reagan was in office. I am quite sure that the Russians did not want Reagan to win a second term.

what about the atomic bomb that was dropped in japan? a DEMOCRAT ordered those bombs to be dropped.

And that was the last time there was a democrat in office that had a backbone. Kennedy did get us into Vietnam,but that was a very poorly ran war. Not a shining moment. Since WW2 most dems have been for appeasment. Carter and the Iran hostages was a great example of appeasment. And the 1 attempt that was made to free them was an utter failure.
But once good ole Ronnie became pres.....they couldn't get rid of the hostages fast enough. They knew that Ronnie was not going to screw around.

Because Native, 9/11 was the first terrorist attack under Bush's watch. Bush hadnt even been in office a year when that struck.

Clinton, on the other hand, had been prez for 4 years already when Khobar was struck, 6 years when the embassy was hit, and pretty much at the end of his presidency when the cole was hit.

Oh, and the first world Trade center Bombing, an actual attack ON OUR SOIL. And Clinton was prez. What did he do? Nothing.

What he could have done? Turned up the #ing heat something fierice on the Saudis, held the proverbial gun to thier head and told them to knock the # off, we want names, assholes and elbows, people. Instead, the Saudis blew off the Clinton admins investigations into both Khobar and the Cole.

Had 9/11 happened while Clintonw as prez? He wouldnt have done #. he did absolutely nothing in the past.

Originally posted by silQ

Originally posted by nyeff
I would think Kim would want any Democrat,than Bush. The world knows it can get away with a lot of crap when a dem is in office. Plus he probably figures he might be able to get more nuculear power.

Kinda the same as when Reagan was in office. I am quite sure that the Russians did not want Reagan to win a second term.

what about the atomic bomb that was dropped in japan? a DEMOCRAT ordered those bombs to be dropped.

Read it again, the verb used was present tense, not past tense. The democrat leadership of today is not the same of WWII, and nether is the republican leadership.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Clinton, on the other hand, had been prez for 4 years already when Khobar was struck, 6 years when the embassy was hit, and pretty much at the end of his presidency when the cole was hit.

Oh, and the first world Trade center Bombing, an actual attack ON OUR SOIL. And Clinton was prez. What did he do? Nothing.

What he could have done? Turned up the #ing heat something fierice on the Saudis, held the proverbial gun to thier head and told them to knock the # off, we want names, assholes and elbows, people. Instead, the Saudis blew off the Clinton admins investigations into both Khobar and the Cole.

Had 9/11 happened while Clintonw as prez? He wouldnt have done #. he did absolutely nothing in the past.

Just wondering. The first WTC attack did you fly a flag, march in a parade and demand retaliation? Did you watch on live TV while 3,000 people died? Did you see the airlines shut down for days and our people scared of muslims? No, I wish Clinton had done something but I don't think ANYONE knew how bad it could get. Comparing those attacks and 9/11 does not make sense to me. I feel 9/11 was a history changing event and drove our president to react (appropriately).

I just cannot say that Dems are weak when we have no proof bush is tough outside of 9/11. Iraq did not show he was tough just that he was vendictive.

Of course in the grand scheme of things no one that is a politician is really someone we can trust, just the lesser of two evils.