AGA...N. Korea...NUKES...Bush.

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Celestial Tone Monztah

unread,
Oct 9, 2006, 7:08:28 PM10/9/06
to
N. Korea has "the bomb". Yet not a single chickenhawk has typed himself
silly about it into alt.guitar.amps AGA: The Fox News Echo ;-).

The fact is, IF Pyongyang were ever to USE one, U.S. ICBM's launched
from a submarine would turn all pre-targets into a smoking ash tray.

Now _selling_ to any and all non-state parties interested in laying
waste to Western centers of commercial or political power...that's
a problem. Not a good time to live in Israel, D.C. or NYC.

Thank you George Bush & Co. Your Texas pin-head policy switch toward N.
Korea _really_ proved what a shitbird U.S. president you are.

"Lib" *this* you ignorant imbeciles.

Tony Hwang

unread,
Oct 9, 2006, 7:31:16 PM10/9/06
to
Celestial Tone Monztah wrote:

Hi,
Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!

The Librarian

unread,
Oct 9, 2006, 10:10:15 PM10/9/06
to
This May 12, 2003 FORTUNE Magazine article about Rumsfeld's membership
on the board of directors of ABB, a Swiss company that took part in
building the North Korean nuclear reactors, and Rumsfeld's lobbying for
the contract, includes the following paragraphs:


http://money.cnn.com/...

... President Bush was skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called
for a policy review in March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after
consulting with Rumsfeld's Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send
nuclear technology to North Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended
by Westinghouse and North Korean officials were held Sept. 14,
2001--three days after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil.

The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project.
Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending
letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the
reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a
concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse
sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in
October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium
program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making
plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of
nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep
the project going.

The Librarian

unread,
Oct 9, 2006, 10:11:25 PM10/9/06
to

The Librarian

unread,
Oct 9, 2006, 10:15:00 PM10/9/06
to
In his final days in office, Clinton had been preparing a bold deal in
which North Korea would give up its missile and nuclear programs in
return for aid and normalized relations. But President Bush was

skeptical of Pyongyang's intentions and called for a policy review in
March 2001. Two months later the DOE, after consulting with Rumsfeld's
Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send nuclear technology to North
Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended by Westinghouse and North
Korean officials were held Sept. 14, 2001--three days after the worst
terror attack on U.S. soil.

The Bush administration still hasn't abandoned the project.
Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending
letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the
reactors, which Markey calls "nuclear bomb factories." Nevertheless, a
concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse
sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in
October--shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium
program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making
plutonium. The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of
nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep
the project going.

Sooner or later, the outspoken Secretary of Defense will have to
explain his silence.

DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 1:54:34 AM10/10/06
to
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8ZAWg.121078$R63.27532@pd7urf1no...

> Hi,
> Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
> Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!

You conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton's method of bribing NK not
to build nukes had already failed as NK simply broke the agreement when they
had milked it enough. The UN Security Council doesn't dance to the U.S.
tune much these days, yet they voted their condemnation in record time, but
of course some folks will still try to blame it all on the U.S. KJI has
starved to death a tenth of his own population trying to build up his
military, is Bush to blame for that too?


Message has been deleted

Celestial Tone Monztah

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 2:23:50 AM10/10/06
to
DGDevin wrote:

> "Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:8ZAWg.121078$R63.27532@pd7urf1no...
>
>> Hi,
>> Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
>> Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
>
> You conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton's method of bribing NK not
> to build nukes had already failed as NK simply broke the agreement when they
> had milked it enough.

100% false Stalky.

It was working. Bush came along in 2000 and *completely* fucked up
realpolitik.

Now go to FoxNews and let them pump you full of more opinions to
echo. Bes sure to "LOL" / "Lib" it under your other socks :-)

Celestial Tone Monztah

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 2:24:55 AM10/10/06
to
sho-nuff wrote:

> Bush has had SIX YEARS and his idea of foreign policy is to not talk to
> people. It's not working.

Soon enough, neither will he and his imbecile posse be ;-).

Message has been deleted

Celestial Tone Monztah

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 2:46:10 AM10/10/06
to
flipper wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:54:34 GMT, "DGDover" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

> I make the mistake of imagining no one sees me for a sock talking to myself.
> Now if you'll excuse me, we have to tune into FoxNews and have opinions
> pumped in for AGA echo purposes. It's no longer Fair and Balanced, it's THE
> MOST POWERFUL NEWS CHANNEL. <click click HEIL!>

Elvis Kabong

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 9:16:31 AM10/10/06
to

"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:uAGWg.12184$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

See if this can sink into your brain:

BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your evasive deflecting refusals to address the immediate issue by
bringing up something only partially related of the past is just as
intellectually dishonest as retardicons bringing up hypothetical scenarios
like "If Hillary were president, the liberals would want her to let
NK to nuke us." or some other horseshit like that.

You don't think Bush has been acting like he thinks
he's King of the world with his flatulent, arrogant,
pre-emptive striking under false pretexts war-mongering
and refusals to have diplomacies with alleged enemies?

You mean to tell us you've been unaware of
his sabre rattling and belligerent prodding with
a bully-like rhetoric with policies to match?

Evidently to you, that's only a minor issue that needs
to be ignored so you and the retardicons can bring up
Clinton for the fucking billionth time.
Sheeks!

DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 11:32:57 AM10/10/06
to
"Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
news:b3NWg.57387$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>
>
> See if this can sink into your brain:
>
> BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT
> ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See if you can grasp this, a failed policy is a failed policy, it doesn't
get washed away when an administration's term ends. Clinton in effect
bribed NK to keep them from pursuing nukes, NK broke the agreement, you
cannot blame that on Bush and keep a straight face.

The rest I'll spare you the humiliation of responding to.


DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 11:37:06 AM10/10/06
to
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:r5gmi219od0js977o...@4ax.com...

>>You conveniently leave out the fact
>

> You make the mistake of imagining they know any of them, or even care
> to.

Zealots of both sides will happily ignore anything inconvenient to their
argument, our resident sufferers from Bush-phobia will blame a rainy day on
Bush if they can. That a brutal dictator with a long history of aggression
and savagery only developed nukes because Bush took office is a claim that
does not survive serious examination. Bush deserves plenty of blame, but
not on this.


Rick N. Backer

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 12:55:31 PM10/10/06
to
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:03:12 -0700, sho-nuff <sho-...@rascals.org>
did courageously avow:

>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:54:34 GMT, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:


>
>>"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>news:8ZAWg.121078$R63.27532@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Really U.S. foreign policy SUCK! Can't accomplish anything proper.
>>> Another example of trying to mend corral fence after the horses ran away!
>>
>>You conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton
>

>I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention Clinton.
>Pathetic. Is there NOTHING that Bush can be held accountable for???

>
>Bush has had SIX YEARS and his idea of foreign policy is to not talk to
>people. It's not working.

It would probably be worded more appropriately this way; if there was
any idea, like a policy, it would be foreign to him.

--
Ken Wilson

DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 3:40:41 PM10/10/06
to
"Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message
news:t0kni2pr9oi2gadrq...@4ax.com...

> It would probably be worded more appropriately this way; if there was
> any idea, like a policy, it would be foreign to him.

Did you see the language China used to condemn NK's nuke test? Their
statements are never casual, every word has a specific meaning, and they
used words to refer to NK that in the past China has used only in reference
to nations they consider hostile. But this is somehow all the fault of
Bush? Bush forced KJI to starve his own population going back to long
before Bush was elected, Bush is responsible for a nuke program NK has been
working on for many years? Get real.


Rick N. Backer

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 5:06:44 PM10/10/06
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:40:41 GMT, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
did courageously avow:

On the other hand look at it from this perspective. Over time you and
I have had our fill of each other for various and sundry reasons.
While we may not be in agreement we are both able to live in this
environment without going postal on each other. Why, because we
engage in dialogue. Therefore:

1) Ken & DG have differences
2) Differences can sometimes lead to violent or catastrophic actions
amongst people.
3) Ken & DG talk out their differences
4) Ken's & DG's differences don't to lead to violent or catastrophic
actions.

Therefore, talking out differences leads us away from violent or
catastrophic actions.

George W. needs to talk to these people. You can't operate in a
vacuum, particularly when it begins to give people the possibly
mistaken perception of whose ears the vacuum exists between.

--
Ken Wilson

Elvis Kabong

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 5:15:56 PM10/10/06
to

"Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message news:ag2oi29iqhdhsl68o...@4ax.com...

Somehow I don't that will apply to Devie's warped sense of logic.

The Librarian

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 5:31:47 PM10/10/06
to

well Bush oughta be asking Rummy a few questions and since he isn't,
I'd say yes.

The Librarian

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 5:34:27 PM10/10/06
to

let me repeat - Rummy sold these folks nuclear power. Sweet, huh?

DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 6:34:32 PM10/10/06
to
"Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message
news:ag2oi29iqhdhsl68o...@4ax.com...

> On the other hand look at it from this perspective. Over time you and
> I have had our fill of each other for various and sundry reasons.
> While we may not be in agreement we are both able to live in this
> environment without going postal on each other.

So if I demand that you buy me a PRS double-cut or I'll set fire to your car
and you catch me hanging around your house with a can of gas, how long will
this friendly chatter continue? How many threats do you yield to before you
decide I've pushed my luck more than enough?

The regime in NK assassinates foreign diplomats, bombs airliners, kidnaps
the citizens of other countries and hold them literally for deacades,
starves a tenth of its own people to death to divert resources to building
up the military and defies the United Nations by developing nuclear weapons,
they also walk away from the six-nation talks intended to find a way to
convince them to stop their nuclear weapons program, and all this is on
Bush's head? Their only friend with any clout in the world is China and
even China is pissed off at them, that's Bush's fault? The UN Security
Council set a speed record condemning their nuke test and is considering
sanctions, but it's *Bush* who is backing NK into a corner? Just how many
kicks at the Cat does KJI get before the liberal half of the world figures
out maybe it's him that is the problem?


DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 6:37:17 PM10/10/06
to
"Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
news:D4UWg.47080$KR1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>
> Somehow I don't that will apply to Devie's warped sense of logic.

Gosh, you're right there Elvis, somehow sending more aid to a mass-murdering
dictator so he can stage huge military parades and plot his latest attack on
South Korea doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.

Hell, now that he's fired missiles *over* Japan and has nukes to put on
those missiles, Tokyo will probably take care of the problem anyway. Might
be a good time to take out life insurance on KJI.


When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 6:47:58 PM10/10/06
to

Dover...

Pacification w/ heating oil under Clinton worked. Bush was illegally
crowned prince of dollar land and pulled the plug on all back channel
prior agreements. Thereafter, NK ramped up missiles and nuclear weapon
development. "...a failed policy is a failed policy...".

Your ignorance will continue to amuse :-)

When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 6:48:46 PM10/10/06
to
DGDover wrote:

ignorance.

When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 7:10:45 PM10/10/06
to
DGDover wrote:

> "Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message
> news:t0kni2pr9oi2gadrq...@4ax.com...
>
>> It would probably be worded more appropriately this way; if there was
>> any idea, like a policy, it would be foreign to him.
>
> Did you see the language China used to condemn NK's nuke test? Their
> statements are never casual, every word has a specific meaning, and they
> used words to refer to NK that in the past China has used only in reference
> to nations they consider hostile.

*Public* statements are fool food, -imbecile.

> But this is somehow all the fault of Bush?

Acceleration began with Bush hostility*. Prior admin. had pacification
working.

> Bush forced KJI to starve his own population going back to long
> before Bush was elected, Bush is responsible for a nuke program NK has been
> working on for many years? Get real.

Bush, Cheyney and Rove miscalculated that N. Korea was one gasp from
collapse and if they reneged on U.S. diplomatic efforts extended
(albeit with lemon face) by Clinton admin., they'd cause immediate
NK collapse the neocons could take credit for.

They miscalculated.....

"Slam dunk"
"Mission Accomplished"


*
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall October 9, 2006 02:00 AM
The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria
once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It
failed. ...
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010275.php


North Korean Foreign Policy and the Bush Administration
Kim was visiting the US to seek Bush's support for the so-called
"Sunshine Policy" of peace and reconciliation with North Korea, a work
which won Kim the ...
www.hereinreality.com/news/koreanflipflop.html


Asia Times - News and analysis from Korea; North and South
But for now, three years in, we finally know what the Bush
administration's North Korea policy is. It is a shambles, and a
disgrace. ...
www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EK26Dg01.html


Why the Bush Policy Is Failing in North Korea
Bush’s reelection brought word from North Korea that it would be “quite
possible” to resolve the crisis if the United States moderated its
policy. ...
hnn.us/articles/10400.html


Bush, Kerry & North Korea - CBS News
Kerry says diplomacy is compromise, inferring that Mr. Bush's policy
with North Korea is responsible for "letting a nuclear nightmare
develop," as Kerry is ...
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/14/politics/main643242.shtml


TIME.com: Why the US Changed its North Korea Stance -- Page 1North
Korea's nuclear initiative has exposed a crisis in the Bush
Administration's Korea policy dating back to February of 2001, shortly
after President ...
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,405876,00.html?internalid=ACA


"Rolling Blunder" by Fred Kaplan
How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes. ... a memo to
Bush, calling for "regime change" as a policy toward North Korea. Bush
seemed to agree. ...
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html


Bush: N. Korea test 'unacceptable' - Today - MSNBC.comBush said that
North Korea was “one of the world’s leading proliferators” of ... The
North's move will "seriously affect" South Korea's policy, Roh said. ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15190745/ - 60k - Oct 9, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 7:17:30 PM10/10/06
to
Seattle Post Intelligencer McCain blames Clinton policies for N. Korea
woes Washington Post, United States - 2 hours ago
Criticism leveled at Bush policy toward N. Korea


Baltimore Sun, United States - 15 hours ago
... Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, defended Bush's policy of
avoiding direct talks with North Korea. The administration is willing ...

North Korea Drives Bush Into Outer Space
OpEdNews, PA - 10 hours ago
... threat from N. Korea and China. Back in the 2000 campaign - when
Iran was at the bottom of their fearmongering flow chart - Bush's
foreign policy team, the ...


Malaysia Star Democrats assail Bush's N. Korea policy

Seattle Post Intelligencer - Oct 9, 2006
... WASHINGTON -- Democrats seized on North Korea's brazen act to
criticize President ... rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate,
assailed Bush's policy as a ...

Bush warns N Korea but options are limited MSN Money
Bush has limited options in dealing with N Korea Financial Times


Kerry blasts Bush N.Korea policy at Boulder City campaign stop
San Diego Union Tribune, United States - 1 hour ago
... John Kerry said Tuesday that a nuclear test in North Korea is
evidence of the Bush administration's “failed policies,” and called for
the US to engage in ...


Bush wasted 6 years on N Korea: claim United Press International
Forbes

Playfuls.com Bringing N Korea to book, and table
Bangkok Post, Thailand - 3 hours ago
... the reluctance to engage in bilateral talks, it is too easy to say
the latest events are simply another foreign policy failure of the Bush
administration ...


PakTribune.com Bush and N. Korea - mistakes and double standards at
every turn ePluribus Media - 5 hours ago
... President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national
security ... word for it": The head of the Non-proliferation Policy
Education Centre in ...


The Age US rejects direct talks with N. Korea
Washington Times, DC - 5 hours ago
... test was evidence of a failed US policy, Mr. Snow ... of the war in
Iraq hampered the Bush administration's ability to dissuade North Korea
from developing ...


When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 7:27:02 PM10/10/06
to
DGDover wrote:

> So if I demand that you LOL


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 9:49:56 PM10/10/06
to
"sho-nuff" <sho-...@rascals.org> wrote in message
news:19hoi25sfdmlg4q8n...@4ax.com...
>
> OK, more super-dishonesty from you. The previous post said nothing about
> aid, but talked about diplomacy.

Just when I think you've displayed the absolute depths of your ignorance,
you prove there's another area of history you know *nothing* about. Do you
*ever* do any reading before you jam your foot in your mouth, or do you
actually enjoy being the least-informed person in the room?

> We used to send aid to Saddam, did you bitch about that too?

Saddam was fighting a regime that much of the world considered a common
enemy. Oops, I forgot, the Iran-Iraq war is one of your many areas of
ignorance.

> Dream on.

And another sock-puppet hits the killfile. Don't forget to morph again
Capt. Cut n' Paste, 'cause we know you'd hate for anyone not to see your
sophmoric contributions.


Elvis Kabong

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 9:50:01 PM10/10/06
to

"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message news:54foi294rmm4tp14t...@4ax.com...
> I suppose you think forging messages is 'clever'.

They certainly are funny though. But just think of them
as Translations.

BTW, did you formerly post as EnRonic (RonSonic)?

DGDevin

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 9:52:41 PM10/10/06
to
"sho-nuff" <sho-...@rascals.org> wrote in message
news:etgoi29tcmcbarjmq...@4ax.com...

> He has failed to even try to engage North Korea directly. He has no
> policy
> toward them at all, really. Bush doesn't believe in talking to your
> enemies, many consider that to be a mistake.

It's sometimes hard to accept that you could really be as ignorant as you
seem to be, but then you go and demostrate you really are.

Q: Which nation walked away from the six-nation talks?

A) The United States

B) North Korea


Tony Hwang

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 10:18:05 PM10/10/06
to
Hi,
Read my two line sentence. Is there any Clinto or Bush mentioned?
Sounds like you are implying that Bush did not do good on this one.

When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 10:20:28 PM10/10/06
to
DGDover wrote:

> On areas of history I know *nothing* about; Do I *ever* do any reading before I jam your anus in my mouth, or do I


> actually enjoy being the least-informed person in the room?

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall October 9, 2006 02:00 AM

When I Want Your Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 10:23:46 PM10/10/06
to
DGDover wrote:

> It's sometimes hard to accept that I could really be as ignorant as I
> seem to be, but then I go and demostrate I really are.
>
> Q: Which nation walked away from direct talks?


>
> A) The United States
>
> B) North Korea

A.

Now warm the bridge of that cute 'lil nose in the crack 'O my crapper.

Message has been deleted

When I Want UR Opinion

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 10:52:07 PM10/10/06
to
Croneocons caged and on display:


October 09, 2006 -- 02:00 AM EDT)

We'll need to wait a few more hours for confirmation. But initial signs
suggest that the US picked up the seismic signature of the underground
nuclear test the North Koreans are claiming to have carried out. We've
been pretty sure for some time that the North Koreans had developed a
nuclear capacity. This would not only confirm that assumption, but the
decision to conduct the test will be interpreted as a sign of
belligerence that will send ripples throughout the region, probably
first through Japanese rearmament.

For the US this is a strategic failure of the first order.

The origins of the failure are ones anyone familiar with the last six
years in this country will readily recognize: chest-thumping followed by
failure followed by cover-up and denial. The same story as Iraq. Even
the same story as Foley.

North Korea's nuclear program has been a problem for US presidents going
back to Reagan, and the conflict between North and South has been a key
issue for US presidents going back to Truman. As recently as 1994, the
US came far closer to war with North Korea than most Americans realize.

President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart
agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of
plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear
reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of
diplomatic normalization.

President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted
to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North
Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise,
President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence
that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to
the bomb) as the final straw.

Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad,
Bush=Not whatever Clinton did.

All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North
Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots
and sticks.

Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq,
the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly,
utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.

Threats are a potent force if you're willing to follow through on them.
But he wasn't. The plutonium production plant, which had been shuttered
since 1994, got unshuttered. And the bomb that exploded tonight was, if
I understand this correctly, almost certainly the product of that
plutonium uncorked almost four years ago.

So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his bluff
and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and all the
atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have done
essentially nothing.

Indeed, from the moment of the initial cave, the White House began
acting as though North Korea was already a nuclear power (something that
was then not at all clear) to obscure the fact that the White House had
chosen to twiddle its thumbs and look the other way as North Korea
became a nuclear power. Like in Bush in Iraq and Hastert and Foley, the
problem was left to smolder in cover-up and denial. Until now.

Hawks and Bush sycophants will claim that North Korea is an outlaw
regime. And no one should romanticize or ignore the fact that it is one
of the most repressive regimes in the world with a history of
belligerence, terrorist bombing, missile proliferation and a lot else.
They'll also claim that the North Koreans were breaking the spirit if
not the letter of the 1994 agreement by pursuing a covert uranium
enrichment program. And that's probably true too.

But facts are stubborn things.

The bomb-grade plutonium that was on ice from 1994 to 2002 is now actual
bombs. Try as you might it is difficult to imagine a policy -- any
policy -- which would have yielded a worse result than the one we will
face Monday morning.

Talking tough is great if you can make it stick and back it up; it is
always and necessarily cleaner and less compromising than sitting down
and dealing with bad actors. Talking tough and then folding your cards
doesn't just show weakness it invites contempt. And that is what we have
here.

The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria
once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It

failed. And after it failed President Bush couldn't come to grips with
that failure and change course. He bounced irresolutely between the
Powell and Cheney lines and basically ignored the whole problem hoping
either that the problem would go away, that China would solve it for us
and most of all that no one would notice.

Do you notice now?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Rick N. Backer

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 11:18:57 PM10/10/06
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:15:56 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampsc...@tuneland.com> did courageously avow:

Don't fret your tuchis. I'm sure Mr. Devin will appraise me of his
thoughts on that.

--
Ken Wilson

Rick N. Backer

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 11:22:49 PM10/10/06
to
On 10 Oct 2006 14:34:27 -0700, "The Librarian" <zoot...@gmail.com>
did courageously avow:

Surely you don't expect foreign policy to interfere with making a
buck. That would be un-American.

--
Ken Wilson

Rick N. Backer

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 11:25:15 PM10/10/06
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:47:58 -0700, When I Want Your Opinion <"I'll
beat it out of you"@aga.edu> did courageously avow:

Uh, not to be a buttinski, but don't you have to have a policy first,
before it can fail? [;-)

--
Ken Wilson

Rick N. Backer

unread,
Oct 10, 2006, 11:27:57 PM10/10/06
to
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:11:04 -0700, sho-nuff <sho-...@rascals.org>
did courageously avow:

>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:32:57 GMT, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>


>wrote:
>
>>"Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
>>news:b3NWg.57387$vX5....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> See if this can sink into your brain:
>>>
>>> BILL CLINTON IS NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT
>>> ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>See if you can grasp this, a failed policy is a failed policy, it doesn't
>>get washed away when an administration's term ends. Clinton in effect
>>bribed NK to keep them from pursuing nukes, NK broke the agreement, you
>>cannot blame that on Bush and keep a straight face.
>>
>>The rest I'll spare you the humiliation of responding to.
>

>Bush has had six years in office, when will any buck stop with him? He's
>had six years to deal with whatever Clinton left him... every president has
>to deal with the state of the world when he takes office. Bush has done
>little to nothing about North Korea.
>
>On the other hand, looking at Iraq in comparison, maybe that's for the
>best.

Who knows. Maybe the voters are tired of the Republican whored always
running around going, "Clinton did it, Clinton did it". Maybe they
are ready to ask why, after six years, they didn't fix it then instead
of letting it get worse.

--
Ken Wilson

Message has been deleted

Elvis Kabong

unread,
Oct 11, 2006, 1:11:11 AM10/11/06
to

"Rick N. Backer" <ken.w...@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote in message news:63poi25a899fd2mln...@4ax.com...

Well done Ken. You must have cleaner water up there
t