Then there's the Free Belarus site, with AI as a sponsor. Not sure what to think about that.
Lot's of stories about Clinton's socialist agenda for the country.
I've been all over the Right Wingy Dingy universe today. One of the most consistantly visable advertisers is amazon.com. No RealAudio. Not even Barnes & Noble.
Painting the Scene:
North Korea Accuses United States Of Threatening Nuclear War TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea accused the United States Saturday of pushing the Korean peninsula to the brink of nuclear war.
``It is the final goal of the U.S. warmongers to stifle the Korean socialist system with nuclear attacks,'' said a commentary in the North Korean official party newspaper Rodong Sinmun.
The paper, monitored in Tokyo, said that unless the United States changes direction, ``an armed conflict, that is a nuclear war, is unavoidable.''
The paper said that the U.S. had made the threat to use nuclear weapons against North Korea at the 20th Military Committee Meeting with South Korea earlier this week.
Pyongyang said it is ready to meet the U.S. challenge and that it will attack the U.S. mainland if the U.S. ``attempts to inflict a nuclear holocaust on the DPRK (North Korea).''
************************************
1998 Missile Defense Poll
Co-Sponsored by The Claremont Institute, The Center for Security Policy, the Free Congress Foundation, the Family Research Council, and the Heritage Foundation
N = 800 Registered Voters Dates = July 26 - July 29 1998 Margin of Error = + 3.5
1) Russia: Concern About its Future Course
YES NO DK/REF 1. Do you think that Russia is an enemy today? 32% 63% 5% 2. Do you think that Russia poses a future threat to the United States? 52% 40% 8% 3. Do you think that the Russian government values human life as much as the U.S. Government? 27% 64% 9% 4. Do you think that Russia would ever launch a nuclear attack against the United States? 43% 43% 14%
2) China: Serious Uneasiness
YES NO DK/REF 5. Let me turn now to some questions about China. Do you think China is an enemy today? 48% 43% 9% 6. Do you think China poses a future threat to the United States? 71% 22% 7% 7. Do you think the Chinese government values human life as much as the U.S. government does? 18% 76% 6% 8. Do you think China would ever launch a nuclear attack against the United States? 56% 29% 16% 9. In recent years, the United States has transferred sensitive technology that could be used for military or civilian purposes to China. Do you believe that 16% YES, THE U.S. SHOULD TRANSER SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO CHINA 78% NO, THE U.S. SHOULD NOT TRANSFER SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO CHINA 7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
3) Concerns About the Missile Threat
10a. [SPLIT SAMPLE, N= 400] President Clinton has repeatedly said that there are no missiles pointed at the United States. How much confidence do you have that no missiles are pointed at the United States? Would you say that you are 13% TOTAL EXTREMELY/VERYCONFIDENT 3% EXTREMELY CONFIDENT 10% VERY CONFIDENT
24% SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT
62% TOTAL NOT CONFIDENT 31% NOT VERY CONFIDENT 31% NOT AT ALL CONFIDENT
2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
10b. [SPLIT SAMPLE, N= 400] If you were told officially that there are no missiles pointed at the United States, how much confidence would you have in that assessment? Would you say that you are 9% TOTAL EXTREMELY/VERY CONFIDENT 2% EXTREMELY CONFIDENT 7% VERY CONFIDENT
23% SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT
65% TOTAL NOT CONFIDENT 30% NOT VERY CONFIDENT 35% NOT AT ALL CONFIDENT
3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
11. The United States and Russia have signed an agreement promising not to target each other's countries with their ballistic missiles. Government information indicates however that Russia's implementation of this agreement cannot be verified and that Russia could quickly and secretly retarget the United States. How much confidence do you have that Russian missiles are not pointed at the U.S.? Would you say that you are 13% TOTAL EXTREMELY/VERY CONFIDENT 3% EXTREMELY CONFIDENT 10% VERY CONFIDENT
28% SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT
58% TOTAL NOT CONFIDENT 29% NOT VERY CONFIDENT 29% NOT AT ALL CONFIDENT
2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
12. President Clinton has just reached an agreement with China not to target missiles at each other's countries. Government information indicates that this agreement cannot be verified and that China could quickly and secretly retarget the United States. How much confidence do you have that Chinese missiles are not pointed at the U.S.? 14% TOTAL EXTREMELY/VERY CONFIDENT 5% EXTREMELY CONFIDENT 9% VERY CONFIDENT
22% SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT
62% TOTAL NOT CONFIDENT 29% NOT VERY CONFIDENT 33% NOT AT ALL CONFIDENT
3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
13. From what you have seen or read, do you believe there are countries - other than Russia - that are getting ballistic missiles capable of delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in an attack on the United States or its troops and allies overseas? 88% YES, THERE ARE SUCH COUNTRIES 7% NO, THERE ARE NOT SUCH COUNTRIES 6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
4) Concerns about "Rogue Nations"
YES NO DK/REF 14. Recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan proved that both nations have nuclear weapons. Does this development make you worry that a nuclear war may occur in the near future? 71% 25% 4% 15. Do you believe that nations such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran will have nuclear weapons of their own within ten years? 89% 5% 6% 16. Do you believe that if nations such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran possess nuclear weapons, they will pose a (READ CHOICES) to the United States or its forces and allies overseas? 58% TOTAL SERIOUS THREAT 25% EXTREMELY SERIOUS THREAT 33% VERY SERIOUS THREAT
28% SOMEWHAT SERIOUS THREAT
11% TOTAL NOT SERIOUS THREAT 8% JUST A SMALL THREAT 3% NO THREAT AT ALL
3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
5) Attitudes About the Prospects for Ballistic Missile Attack - And U.S. Ability to Deal With It
17. How concerned are you that the United States or its forces and allies overseas might be attacked by ballistic missiles--are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all? 79% TOTAL CONCERNED 30% VERY CONCERNED 49% SOMEWHAT CONCERNED
19% TOTAL NOT CONCERNED 15% NOT VERY CONCERNED 4% NOT CONCERNED AT ALL
3% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
18. In fact, some 25 countries - including Iraq, Iran and North Korea - are acquiring ballistic missiles that can be used in an attack on the United States or its troops and allies overseas. If one of these missiles were fired at the United States today, do you believe the U.S. military could destroy the missile before it could hit and do damage? 54% THE U.S. MILITARY COULD DESTROY THE BALLISTIC MISSILE 27% THE U.S. MILITARY COULD NOT DESTROY THE BALLISTIC MISSILE 20% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
19. Government documents indicate that the U.S. military cannot destroy even a single incoming missile. How would you characterize your reaction to this information: 19% SHOCKED AND ANGRY 28% VERY SURPRISED 17% SOMEWHAT SURPRISED 22% NOT SURPRISED AT ALL 14% SKEPTICAL BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE INACCURATE * DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
6) Americans Support the Deployment of a Missile Defense System
20. Given the fact that the United States cannot currently stop even one incoming missile, do you favor or oppose deployment of a missile defense? (IF IN FAVOR: Should this deployment be an urgent defense priority or not?) 86% TOTAL FAVOR 46% FAVOR AND URGENT PRIORITY 28% FAVOR, BUT NOT URGENT PRIORITY 12% FAVOR, DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY
8% OPPOSE
7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
21A. [SPLIT SAMPLE, N= 400] How important is the cost of a missile defense system in your decision about whether the United States should deploy one? 40% VERY IMPORTANT 40% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 17% NOT TOO IMPORTANT 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
21B. [SPLIT SAMPLE, N= 400] Do you believe that the United States should deploy a missile defense system designed to defend against missile attack even if the costs of doing so are relatively high? 68% YES 19% NO 13% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
22. The U.S. has spent approximately $10 billion to date on peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Would you be willing to spend less than half that much - say, $3 billion dollars -- to begin defending the United States against missile attacks? 75% YES, I WOULD BE WILLING TO SEE $3 BILLION SPENT TO DEPLOY MISSILE DEFENSES 16% NO, $3 BILLION WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO SPEND 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
23. Do you think it would be worthwhile to begin deploying missile defenses if terrorists or hostile governments could attack the United States with other means - for example, through suitcase bombs smuggled into the country? 71% YES, WORTHWHILE 20% NO, NOT WORTHWHILE 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
24. Do you think it would be worthwhile to begin deploying defenses even if they might not be able to stop every attacking missile or should we wait until we are able to deploy a system that will destroy 100% of all attacking missiles? 71% YES, A LESS THAN PERFECT MISSILE DEFENSE IS BETTER THAN NONE AT ALL 20% NO, ONLY A LEAK-PROOF DEFENSE WOULD BE JUSTIFIABLE 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
25. Congressional Candidate A believes that there is a threat of ballistic missile attack against the United States and promises to work to deploy missile defenses. Candidate B believes there is no such danger and will oppose the deployment of missile defenses. Would you be more likely to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B? Would you say that MUCH MORE or SOMEWHAT MORE likely to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B? 72% TOTAL CANDIDATE A 39% MUCH MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE A 33% SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE A
17% TOTAL CANDIDATE B 11% SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE B 6% MUCH MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE B
5% NO DIFFERENCE 6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
7) Considerations on Public Support
26. Do you believe the United States has the technology needed to build effective defenses against incoming ballistic missiles? 78% YES, THE U.S. HAS THE NECESSARY TECHNOLGY 13% NO, THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY TECHNOLOGY 10% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
27. In 1972, the United States signed a treaty with the Soviet Union that prohibits the deployment of effective anti-missile defenses by either country. (ROTATE) Congressional Candidate A says that the United States should remain without missile defenses in order to encourage good relations with Russia and persuade Russia to cut its nuclear forces. Congressional Candidate B says that, since the Soviet Union no longer exists and other countries might pose a threat, this treaty should no longer prevent the United States from having missile defenses. Would you be more likely to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B? Would you say that you are MUCH MORE or SOMEWHAT MORE likely to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B? 31% TOTAL CANDIDATE A 11% MUCH MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE A 20% SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE A
57% TOTAL CANDIDATE B 30% SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE B 27% MUCH MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE B
12% NO DIFFERENCE/DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
28. [IF CANDIDATE A IN QUESTION 27, READ, N= 247] Would you feel differently if you knew that the Soviet Union or Russia had violated the treaty? 59% YES, IF THE OTHER SIDE HAS VIOLATED THE TREATY, WE SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY IT 31% NO, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE OTHER SIDE VIOLATED THE TREATY 10% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
29A. [SPLIT SAMPLE, N= 400] President Clinton and most congressional Democrats have opposed deploying missile defenses. The Republican congressional leadership and the Chairman of the National Republican Party have supported deploying missile defenses as soon as technologically possible. Which party better reflects you view on this issue? 23% THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S OPPOSITION TO DEPLOYING MISSILE DEFENSES 68% THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S SUPPORT FOR DEPLOYING MISSILE DEFENSES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 10% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
29B. [SPLIT SAMPLE, N= 400] President Clinton and most congressional Democrats have opposed deploying missile defenses. The Republican congressional leadership, the Chairman of the National Republican Party and some congressional Democrats have supported deploying missile defenses as soon as technologically possible. Which group better reflects your view on this issue? 20% THOSE OPPOSING THE DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSES 64% THOSE FAVORING DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 16% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
30. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement "I believe that it should be our government's policy to deploy effective national defenses as soon as technologically possible?" (And would that be STRONGLY or SOMWHAT Agree/Disagree?) 81% TOTAL AGREE 46% STRONGLY AGREE 36% SOMEWHAT AGREE
14% TOTAL DISAGREE 11% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 3% STRONGLY DISAGREE
4% NO OPINION 2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
31. The Clinton Administration believes that it will be at least 15 years before a country other than Russia and China could threaten the U.S. with ballistic missiles. Based on its assumptions, the administration proposes to defer deploying anti-missile defenses for at least 6 years. A panel of experts led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has just concluded, however, that missile threats to the United States could emerge far more quickly. Do you believe the government should deploy missile defenses within the next 6 years or postpone them for at least 6 years? 65% YES, DEPLOY FASTER THAN THE CLINTON PLAN
Home - Yahoo! - My Yahoo! - Help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Index | Top Stories | Business | Tech | Politics | World | Local | Entertainment | Sports | Science | Health
Yahoo! News AP Headlines
Saturday January 23 1:24 AM ET
Helms Sets Arms Treaty 'Deadline' By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., says he will put a freeze on treaties the administration wants unless the White House submits proposed modifications in the nuclear arms treaty by June.
``We will consider all of (the treaties) or we will consider none of them,'' Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told a conference of conservative activists on Friday.
Helms wants amendments to the 27-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty brought to the floor, predicting that the Republican Senate would then vote to pull the United States out of the entire treaty.
Among treaties that could become stalled if a standoff develops between Helms and the White House is the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a top administration priority.
The modifications in the ABM treaty were agreed to by President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin but have not been sent to the Senate.
Helms and other conservatives consider the pact dead anyway, because the Soviet Union with whom it was negotiated no longer exists.
Helms told the Conservative Political Action Conference that the entire pact belongs ``in the dustbin of history.''
The treaty is standing in the way of proceeding on a GOP plan to establish a national missile defense system.
Such a system is prohibited by terms of the existing ABM treaty - and the administration contends that Moscow would have to agree to any move by the United States to set up such a system.
``I say baloney,'' Helms said to renegotiating the treaty with the Russians. ``Not on my watch, Mr. President.''
Helms also demanded the administration submit another treaty likely to be rejected: a 1997 environmental pact signed by the United States and 37 other industrial nations in Kyoto, Japan, to limit gases that contribute to global warming.
Helms, who is known for holding up measures and nominations, opposes that treaty, as well.
In 1997, Helms single-handedly blocked the nomination of former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a fellow Republican, to be ambassador to Mexico by refusing to hold hearings.
If that earned him the nickname ``Senator No,'' so be it, Helms told the standing-room-only audience.
``Saying no is part of the job of being chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,'' he said, ``and I plan to say `no' to a few more things this year.''
But Helms said he would not criticize recent steps taken by the administration to permit more humanitarian aid to reach Cuba, even though he strongly supports a continuation of a trade embargo against Fidel Castro's regime.
``I'll (also) go along with letting the Baltimore Orioles play exhibition games against the Cuban national team - but on one condition,'' Helms said. ``I want the Cuban national team to come to Baltimore to play the Orioles first and then the Orioles can go to Havana. Because when the O's get to Cuba, there will be no one to play them.''
Earlier Stories
Helms Discusses Foreign Policy (January 22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Fri Jan 22 | Thu Jan 21 | Wed Jan 20 | Tue Jan 19 | Mon Jan 18 | Sun Jan 17
| Sat Jan 16
Index | Top Stories | Business | Tech | Politics | World | Local | Entertainment | Sports | Science | Health
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Questions or Comments
Copyright © 1999 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.