RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. Bruce

    Wake up

    Just listen to what James Baker said about talking to the enemy. Bush has refused two-party talks for 6 years and the Korean nuke is the result.

    Stop pandering for the Homophobic Republicans

    Comment by Michael — October 9, 2006 @ 9:16 am - October 9, 2006

  2. Bomb test…

    What a mess is the best description of all this. Sanctions aren’t going to work, and leaving Kim in power could destabilize the region by the subsequent arming of Japan which will certainly cause tensions. Most of the region still doesn’t forget what…

    Trackback by The Florida Masochist — October 9, 2006 @ 9:28 am - October 9, 2006

  3. Michael, you ignorant slug.

    The White House has refused unilateral talks with North Korea because Pyongyang wants face to face negotiations with the US in return for no detonation. This is an old demand, and a gimmick.

    The propaganda gimmick is this: if the US declines face-to-face negotiations with Kim Jong-Il, then the nuke test is the result of the US refusal. If the US agrees, then Kim’s regime touts it as a huge dimplomatic victory, won by threatening nuclear war.

    In six or eight months, Pyongyang will pull the same extortion gambit once again. But this time, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and the USA will be ready for a harder line.

    And if you think Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Clinton, Murtha et al are up for this task, you are sadly mistaken.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 9:43 am - October 9, 2006

  4. [Comment deleted due to violation of language rules.]

    Comment by Michael — October 9, 2006 @ 9:52 am - October 9, 2006

  5. And let’s not forget that N Korea already makes money by selling various weapons on the black market. How long before they start looking for buyers among our enemies?

    And Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter should be proud today-this shows just how well giving money for some rogue to not do something really means you lose the money and they build it anyway.

    Comment by just me — October 9, 2006 @ 10:09 am - October 9, 2006

  6. What you extremists fail to acknowledge is that the Bush policy toward N Korea has been antagonistic since 2001 when they abandoned the “agreed framework” established under Clinton.

    At the 6 party talks in Nov 2005, agreement w/ N Korea was again reached until the Bush neo-cons succeeded in freezing N Korea assets in Macao just 4 days after reaching the 6 party agreement.

    This N Korean nuclear crisis is another testament to the moronic and suicidal Bush foreign policy.

    Comment by Michael — October 9, 2006 @ 10:27 am - October 9, 2006

  7. #6: You have to realize that whenever Bush screws something up, the Bush supporters always blame Bill Clinton and/or the Dems, even though Repubs have been in control for nearly six long failure-filled years. Repubs are simply incapable for accepting responsibility for ANYTHING! Some of the Greedy Old Perverts have even blamed Clinton for Foley’s chasing after pages. The facts are beginning to sink in with most Americans now and the old “blame Clinton” message is seen for the pathetic nonsense it has always been. Bushco and its Rubber Stamp enablers in Congress have been dismal failures at virtually everything they’ve tried. The North Korean nuclear test is just one more sad example.

    Comment by Ian — October 9, 2006 @ 10:43 am - October 9, 2006

  8. What you extremists fail to acknowledge is that the Bush policy toward N Korea has been antagonistic since 2001 when they abandoned the “agreed framework” established under Clinton.

    Because they had already violated the framework by developing a nuclear program.

    N Korea didn’t begin its program in 2001, it was developing nukes the whole time under Bill Clinton’s nose, while we were sending tons of money to N Korea. Essentially under Clinton N Korea got to have its cake and eat too.

    Comment by just me — October 9, 2006 @ 11:56 am - October 9, 2006

  9. Uh oh,
    Something went wrong…Another member of the the Axis of Evil is now stronger….
    It can’t be Spiritual Leader Bush’s fault….so…Blame Clinton!!!
    When reality is too “real”…Blame Clinton!!!
    When personal responsibility is too hard…Blame Clinton!!!!

    Comment by keogh — October 9, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - October 9, 2006

  10. Just me

    You don’t know what you are talking about, you silly Bush sycophant. Try reading a little about the history w/ N Korea instead of regurgitating Limbarf & Insanity talking points.

    There is nothing worse than an Uncle Tom wannabee sucking up Republican bilge while they stab themselves and their gay brothers and sisters in the back by voting Republican.

    Comment by Michael — October 9, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - October 9, 2006

  11. And I suppose the picture above doesn’t mean anything to you libtards?

    It sure as hell isn’t Colin Powell or Condi Rice toasting that little dog-eater in Pyongyang. Fatbright herself urged the Clintonistas to extend nukes to tinpot dictators because she felt shame that the USA “was the only superpower in the world.” (Her words.)

    Let’s see if the little cockroach actually detonated a nuclear bomb or just tried to fool us with a big conventional weapon (the seismic readings may be misleading). I’d be very curious to see what the CIA and FBI folks in Langley and Ft. Meade are saying — particularly with regards to measurable radiation in the area…

    Time for Bush to be reminded of the Threat Assessment Matrix, invoke
    CONPLAN-8022, issue a Global Strike Alert Order, and launch some
    tactical nukes to take out the little bug before he decides to share his joy by reducing San Francisco or Seattle to radioactive rubble with a successful “test” of a Taepondong 3 missile…

    Then again, since San Fran keeps thumbing their nose at the rest of normal America, let’s see if they want Washington’s help NOW.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - October 9, 2006

  12. Also – some (okay, all) of you self-righteous lefties are under the mistaken impression that you can negotiate with insane men.

    There are three people you cannot negotiate with – terrorists, lunatics and Kos people. And not necessarily in that order. Hell, we can see examples above of lower-case-losers just throwing verbal bombs instead of discussing issues.

    Now, imagine it was Kim Jong-Mentally-Ill and those words were tactical nukes.

    I haven’t seen this many people defending a crazy Korean since Margaret Cho had her own sitcom.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - October 9, 2006

  13. LOL….again we see how Dems manipulate their uneducated constituents like Michael.

    The Agreed Framework specifically prohibited plutonium reprocessing for weapons.

    However, what the DPRK started doing was enriching uranium instead to make weapons — which they argued was not prohibited by the Agreed Framework.

    And, from a technical standpoint, they were right. The Agreed Framework as written does not prevent them from uranium enrichment; the only thing that comes close is their promise to abide by the 1992 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which can be interpreted to preclude it.

    This demonstrates that either Democrats are hopelessly ignorant and left a legal loophole for the DPRK to build nuclear bombs — or they deliberately overlooked that fact in order to give the Clinton administration another “diplomatic triumph”.

    The Bush administration confronted the DPRK directly about this — and, true to form, the DPRK has continued to stall, bully, and try to force the US to do its bidding, while appeasers like Keogh have demanded that the US give in to a state that has already shown it will violate the spirit of its agreements.

    However, performing the nuclear test was utterly stupid — because the DPRK just completely humiliated China.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - October 9, 2006

  14. There is nothing worse than an Uncle Tom wannabee sucking up Republican bilge while they stab themselves and their gay brothers and sisters in the back by voting Republican.

    What is it with the “uncle Tom” comment?

    One thing that bothers me more than anything about groupthink politics, is that apparantly if you step outside the “groupthink” you are declared an uncle tom or some similar name.

    Although given that I am a staight female, I am not sure the “uncle tom” fits.

    Comment by just me — October 9, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - October 9, 2006

  15. Bush certainly didn’t prevent them from testing a nuke. He’s been President for six years almost. Time to give up the Clinton blame game and realize he’s had six years to fix this issue (among many others) and hasn’t done a damn thing. He’s only two years shy of having been President as long as Clinton and I can’t really see how he’s done anything more than Bill did with North Korea.

    Comment by Britton — October 9, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - October 9, 2006

  16. For all you bush sycophants, check out this and this for some history on the N. Korea nuclear crisis.

    Bush & Co. don’t have the brains or capability or vision that god gave a rock.

    We are in this mess because we have a maniacal idiot for president.

    Comment by Michael — October 9, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - October 9, 2006

  17. Oh and blaming Clinton for everything, particularly when he has a much higher approval rating with Americans than Bush has mustered in six years isn’t probably the best election year strategy.

    Comment by Britton — October 9, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - October 9, 2006

  18. For all you bush sycophants, check out this and this for some history on the N. Korea nuclear crisis.

    Especially the second source, in which the leftist argument is made clear: Bush should have, like Clinton, ignored the fact that the DPRK was enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb so that they wouldn’t reprocess plutonium to build a nuclear bomb.

    If the point was to keep the DPRK from building a nuclear bomb, the Agreed Framework was demonstrably THEN a failure.

    Furthermore, your source demonstrates what bumbling fools the Clinton administration was — sending someone who had already demonstrated that he would pander to North Korea, who then negotiated a deal, announced it minutes after sending it to the White House, that not only offered to give North Korea nuclear technology, but also to completely normalize relationships with it.

    Next, this:

    Bush certainly didn’t prevent them from testing a nuke.

    And just how, pray tell, was he supposed to do it?

    The correct Pandercrat answer, Britton, is “giving into the blackmail of a brutal, evil dictator who has shown time and again that he will break agreements”.

    As I pointed out above, North Korea has completely humiliated China and demonstrated that the DPRK is no puppet of theirs. That, more than anything else, is the good of this situation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 1:47 pm - October 9, 2006

  19. Oh and blaming Clinton for everything, particularly when he has a much higher approval rating with Americans than Bush has mustered in six years isn’t probably the best election year strategy.

    How high of an approval rating do you think Clinton would have had if he had told the truth — that he and his administration were OK with North Korea enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb as long as they didn’t reprocess plutonium?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - October 9, 2006

  20. Before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, a reality-assessment. The estimated-yield of the “test” has been reported as 550-tons, by comparison the WW2 bombs we started-with were in the 12 to 20-kiloton class. It’s most likely that the “test” was actually a fizzle…and a failure….since there’s a 1.5 orders of magnitude difference in the yields. A 500-ton device is a tactical not a strategic waepon, and considering the difficulty the US had in creating effective tactical warheads, it’s unlikey their target design….even as a “dirty nuke”. However, it’s definietly a crossing-of-the-line that they need to be severely smacked-down for.

    The real impact will be if NK doesn’t foreswear any further development, the Japanese will go almost-nuclear; build their own warheads but not arm them with nuclear-fuel, and certainly amend the Peace Constitution. And Taiwan has the industrial and techical capacity to follow several years after. Is that a good thing?…probably not.

    At this rate, I’m not sure I would penalize the PRC if they overthrew the NK government and announced a Protectorate under the doctrine that the territory of NK was at one-point Chinese in culture and tradition. Better the Chinese than the South Koreans….then all parties can negotiate a peaceful transition.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 9, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - October 9, 2006

  21. Let me get this straight.

    President Bush is not resonsible for anything negative that has happened over the past 6 years because Bill Clinton was the President for the preceeding 8. That absolves Bush of any responsibility.

    Is that the game?

    Comment by Chase — October 9, 2006 @ 8:28 pm - October 9, 2006

  22. Hmm, reading the original post, looks like Bruce puts the blame over everyone in the past 14 years. I’d hardly call that not blaming President Bush.

    That said, I’d liked to have seen something done. Either dialing up a red pill, or a nice good old fashioned assassination, or (more Sci-fi) a nice large nickle-iron object dropped from Atlantis. “What’s that? Meteor Strike hit your enrichment plant? Tough luck that.”

    “What we need is a strong nonproliferation policy with other nations to combat the most serious threat to our national security and to the safety of the world – weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists who would smuggle them into our cities.” -Nancy Pelosi 2003

    Because the people who want to kill us have such a great track record of honouring treaties.

    Here’s my challenge to everyone on the comments. What do -you- think we (meaning the US, Au UK Ca and other western powers) think the answer is?

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 9, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - October 9, 2006


    “U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday, WASHINGTON TIMES star reporter Bill Gertz is set to report in Tuesday editions.

    “U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast’s readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.

    ‘There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn’t clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives.’

    “The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said. Developing…”

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - October 9, 2006

  24. #11 “It sure as hell isn’t Colin Powell or Condi Rice toasting that little dog-eater in Pyongyang.”

    Didn’t even have to finish this one to know it was. Most the rest on the gay repubs seem a bit more subtle with their prejudices, at least with Mr. H in da house.

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 9, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - October 9, 2006

  25. Sydney, it seems rather hypocritical for someone like yourself who allies with the party that encourages such vitriol towards the president to dare call ME prejudiced.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    And yes, I am LARGE in dis house. Know what I’m talkin’ bout? (Hat tip – Shrillary Rodham Moonbat)

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - October 9, 2006

  26. Also, for you lower-case-losers who think that all we are doing is “blaming” Bill Clinton for his inept foreign policy experience in the 1990s, allow me to reveal some history for you:

    Yes, dear readers – in 2002, Clinton was over in the Netherlands, and he actually said that he had plans to bomb and take out North Korean nuclear reactors. He somehow just never got around to it, but he had plans to do it. I guess “planning to” means “doing it” in the libtard lexicon. You know, like “planning” to kill OBL but just not getting around to doing it.

    And the story is from CNN, so of course it MUST be true…

    What’s even more hilarious (in a twisted sort of way) was Shrillary’s comments today during a NY Columbus Day parade: “Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now.”

    Uh, excuse me, Miss Thang – but these nuclear materials were delivered to Kim Jong Il by your husband! Your husband and his secretary of state and your fearless ex-president, Jimmy Carter, personally delivered the nuclear equipment for this test to take place today. You did this starting in 1994. YOUR HUSBAND DID IT, YOU IGNORANT COW!

    I need a drink….

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 9, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - October 9, 2006

  27. I am SOOOOO sick and tired of these people on BOTH sides of this use this…this…NIGHTMARE!…for a chance to politically bash the other!

    Look, people…

    Clinton had EIGHT DANG YEARS to do something OTHER than “talk” with Kim about his atomic plans…and did NOTHING!!! Whenever a reporter would ask him about what he is going to do about Kim’s nuclear ambitions, Albright would step in and say that EVERYTHING would be handled through “diplomatic channels”…which means that NO MILITARY “ACTIONS” were being planned. Neither by Clinton, NOR by the U.N. Therefore, you libs that are trying to put all of the blame squarely upon Bush’s head is not only wrong and hypocritical…IT IS JUST PLAIN DUMB!

    However, I think that Bush Jr. should sholder SOME of this blame because we all KNEW that N. Korea was closer to making an atomic bomb than Hussein was to having his own…but Bush chose to send our troops to Iraq, thinning our national defense even MORE! Therefore, for us gay conservatives to point the finger at Clinton (where MOST of the blame REALLY DOES go) is like the farmer criticizing the rooster for not crowing when the fox got into the chicken coop…because the farmer forgot to lock it up!

    Let me say this again: IT IS BOTH BUSH’S AND CLINTON’S FAULT!

    Now can we PLEASE stop this political bickering, and nuke the HECK out of North Korea before “Mad King” Kim turns the West Coast of the U.S.A. into a giant microwave???!!!

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 10, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - October 10, 2006

  28. And by the way…

    “Shrillary” Clinton…since you are such a big fan of “Babs”…

    in the words of the beautiful Barbara Streisand…

    SHUT THE F— UP!!! Your husband LIED about “plans” to take out Crazy Kim JUST as he lied about Monica…and Whitewater…and so on…and so on…

    AND SO ON!!!!!

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 10, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - October 10, 2006

  29. This is interesting. Drudge has a blurb that shows a political ad created by a Hollywood producer that reflects the picture above of Kim Jong-Mentally-Ill and Madeline Halfbright.

    And funnily enough, the GOP deems to be “too hot” for TV.

    You be the judge:

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - October 10, 2006

  30. Flippancy in the first post by Bruce is very unhelpful; attached is a link to another picture which could easily be captioned – accurately or otherwise.

    My understanding of the missile capabilities of the DPRK is that their most advanced missiles would be unable to deliver a warhead to California and, at best, they might be able to reach Alaska. Therefore, I think that the final paragraph of Posting 27 is misleading. If I am wrong on this, please can someone point me to a reliable source to suggest that DPRK missiles could reach, for example, Seattle or San Francisco, as suggested by Posting 11.

    Personally, I am surprised that so many people believe that Russia and especially China have much influence over the DPRK. These countries may engage with the DPRK (including trade and the provision of aid), but independence in political terms is the core ideology of the DPRK. “Juche” (the name for this self-reliance adopted by Kim Il-Sung) is credited by residents of the DPRK for protecting their society against undue influence from Russia/China following the Korean War.

    My understanding is also that for decades after the Korean War, the DPRK was relatively prosperous among developing countries, and that this relative wealth was developed domestically and by way of regional trade (whereas much of the development of its southern neighbour was by way of U.S. cash injection). The leadership of the DPRK in recent years may be condemned for resulting in a deterioration in living conditions, but assertions that Communism always equates to famine seem incorrect on the facts. Again, should anyone be able to point me to evidence that living conditions in the DPRK were substantially lower than other developing countries during the life of Kim Il-Sung (as opposed to Kim Jong-Il), I would be grateful for a reference to the evidence, since everything that I have come across suggests otherwise.

    The call to “nuke the HECK out of North Korea” in Posting 27, to me, is totally abhorrent. The DPRK has a population in excess of 20 million and, if military intelligence on the country is as good as it was concerning Iraq (even that evidence not “sexed up”), chances are that nuclear action would not disable the ability of the DPRK to launch a retaliatory attack. The implications of any such attack – launched by the U.S. – without diplomatic talks face-to-face would, I imagine, result in the rapid erosion of the U.S. in “world power” terms. Is anyone willing to speculate on this?

    Comment by Nick — October 14, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - October 14, 2006

  31. This is interesting, of sorts:

    Comment by Nick — October 14, 2006 @ 11:47 pm - October 14, 2006

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.173 Powered by Wordpress