Condi responds
Condi is brilliant (duh!)
Don't remember exactly who had the interview. Condi was asked about the situation in North Korea. Of course, the interviewer starts throwing the liberal talking point at her.
Basically she said that the (moron) Clinton one-on-one policy failed, and articulated that was because a one-on-one gives a two bit arrogant dog-eating tyrant a chance to sucker punch the big, bad U.S.
WOW!!! The response was exceptional on two counts ...
1) totally dodges the "Clinton/Carter/(half)bright were idiots" situation, as it lumps all the responsibility on North Korea for cheating ... and
2) both articulates why it failed AND inocculates all future regimes from ever making the same (idiotic) mistake again.
We do live in a new world as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and as a result of us sticking our nose into just about everything the world over ... we are perceived as the one superpower, the ultimate authority. The thing Bush understands (that Clinton/Carter were idiots about) is that not only do most countries act only in their own self interest, but that there is a cult of bad little tin-horn tyrants whose "self interest" is almost exclusively confined to stroking themselves. In the "uniform and funny hat" club ... 'kneeing' the U.S. in the groin is the ultimate badge of honor.
So this club is anxiously watching this situation in North Korea for a number of reasons:
1) if North Korea gets the nuke, they will sell it ... talk about the ultimate phallic symbol
2) if the U.S. goes soft on 'make-me' Il, the other little tyrants can expect the same.
One point about #1, however ... is that I think it is important to point out that Clinton GAVE THE NORTH KOREANS THE NUCLEAR MATERIAL. We effectively gave them about 80% of the bomb. The unwillingness of GW to emphasize this point is a dramatic understatement of what happened in the 90s as a result of this disasterous policy.
Why Hillary cannot be President
So, her thighness shoots off her big mouth in a speech, and was immediately humiliated by McCain. Given how big the holes are in the disaster that was the Clinton/Carter/Albright champagne diplomacy with this kook ... you would think Hillary would be smart enough to keep her big mouth shut. EVEN IF YOU GIVE MONICA'S BOYFRIEND THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ... even if you buy all the crap the democrats are lying about (oh, Korea may have been researching nukes, but they didn't actually BUILD any until Bush was in office) ... the policy was a total disaster, and in the best possible view was blatently naive.
These are obvious arguments ... what is the HIGHER thought? Well, what exactly is Hillary proposing? Understand this ... this woman thinks she can be president, and all of the losers are lining up behind her it seems. To run this country you have to be a leader with vision, right? So what is her proposal ... what would she do? Right now, all she has proven is that she can say a lot of really stupid things that have no meaning. As somebody more clever than me has commented ... it is the really stupid joke that is only laughed at by really stupid people.
If you want to have these higher moments every day ... listen carefully to what these losers say ... and see if they answer : what would THEY do? If you only hear what they don't like, but not them offering up their own suggestions, then they are not leaders, but whiners.
God knows this earth is filled with way too many whiners.
Dug our own hole
Way back when I wondered why we needed to go into Iraq.
Wow! Has RMW been downwind of a crack house?
Nope ... my first response was what are we doing? Saddam seemed to be a caged rat ... we could have done a dozen other things to keep him in line, but he was caged. In my guts I was concerned about what we were doing ... and the truth is I was right.
Here is what happened ... in every OTHER encounter we have with other lunatics ... we can now count on NO help because of what happened in Iraq.
The fact that we took the resolutions and actually ENFORCED them has shocked the world. Now, nobody in the world will sign on to even a loud threat if they think there is any chance the US will actually try to enforce it.
Think about it ... every resolution now is totally toothless. I really think the Chinese do not want North Korea to pull what they are doing ... but they are *never* going to allow any kind of resolution that calls for action. Period. The same goes for the Ruskies and the mullahs.
posted by RMW at 11:16 PM
2 Comments:
The North Koreans halted the production of nuclear weapons under Clinton and we had inspectors in there.
The Bush Doctrine has failed as it obviously only applies to weak countries. Other regimes are no longer afraid of us because we do not have the capacity or will to attack them. Any nuclear attack by us on North Korea would result in the destruction of Seoul as well as many innocent North Koreans. The Bush Administration is not going to pay this price. A massive conventional attack would be ineffective as we do not know where their nukes are located and since they are known to use underground facilities.
It is interesting that Bush was for Bi-Lateral talks during his 2004 Presidential Campaign yet now we have been outsourcing our foreign policy to China and others in the 6 Party Talks. Bush changed his mind and refused to talk to North Korea on moral grounds.
North Korea built the weapon as a response to Bush calling them Evil. The North Korean culture is completely different from the Western World. How else would they respond to this act? How would they respond seeing the weakest of the Axis, Iraq, attacked first? Iraq sends a message that if one does not have nukes they will be attacked first. North Korea is using this as a bargaining chip and the way to resolve the situation is to bring in inspectors and dismantle their nukes. Then we offer economic aid. Eventually the government will collapse as this is what happens when Countries are introduced to capitalism. The less isolated and more developed North Korea becomes the sooner the regime will fall.
The solution to dealing with undesirable regimes is economic investment. As the middle class rises the dictators loose power and the regime falls.
If we did a Marshall Plan in Iraq, secured the Syrian and Iranian border, and did not disband the Iraqi military, we would be in a different situation.
Um ... well, that would not agree with what Clinton and the boys said, nor would it jibe with any reasonable timeline, nor would it line up with the deal NK was doing with Pakistan.
But it fits in PERFECTLY with mindless liberal dogma! (take a hit ... hold it) ... Nothing bad happened under Clinton, kum-ba-ya. Everybody loved us, kum-ba-ya.
but hey ... let me go ahead for one second and grant you that *everything* you said makes sense and is true (you know ... temporary insanity ... ). So what?
That does not change the fact that the Clinton policies were totally stupid and accomplished absolutely nothing. N.K. still has nukes, always did, and always will ... THEY NEVER TOOK APART ANYTHING. During Clinton's time, under your make-believe world, all they did was developed better ways to bring those nukes to you and me.
Or are you going to deny that too? Hey, just change the date of the launch of that missile over Japan ... make it 2001 instead! Now your delusion is complete!
Re: military options in N.K. There are none ... has nothing to do with Nukes or being stretched too thin or whatever ... bottom line is that a good outfielder with a strong arm could hit Seoul from N.K. That is not to say we might not someday be forced to use a "bad" option, but all options are really BAD.
Ah, more talking points. Yes, of course ... WE caused ding-dong Il to start up his nukes program, and WE are creating all the terrorists, and ... um ... oh ... we cause the hurricanes and tsunamis and ... lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!!!
Man that is ridiculous ... are you incapable of seeing evil in anybody but your own people? Are you so blind that you cannot see that a deranged little kook that starves 22 million people is just plain insane?
So, according to YOUR ASSESSMENT, the US has 0 good military options regardless ... even if we get 90% of what they got, South Korea and a whole bunch of others get smeared. We win no doubt, but is is a lose-lose with a ton of carnage. And ping-pong doesn't know this? So what is the point of a nuke?
You argue out of both sides of your mouth.
You see, when you try to employ liberal logic, it ALWAYS folds back on itself ...
So, Ping-pong is worried we will attack so he starts to build a nuke and REFUSES 6-way talks.
If the U.S. gets in a 6-way deal with China, how can we attack ol' Ping-pong? If N.K. wanted SAFETY, they would be all over this 6-party deal. NK KNOWS WE ARE NEVER GOING TO ATTACK ... you don't think they know as least as much as YOU? They want us to pay them off like Monica's boyfriend did, AND have the freedom to continue their nuclear terrorism the way they always have.
Just admit it ... Clinton / Albright / Carter were a bunch of fools that got suckered into a totally brainless deal. They were dealing with THE EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES and AT BEST ANALYSIS chose to punt. Bush decided he didn't like blackmail and is trying to at least change the status quo.
Re: Iraq ... you damned right, but then again, hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20. How anybody thought it was a good idea to "unemploy" Iraq's entire (heavily armed) military is beyond comprehension ... what the hell did they think these guys were going to do???
Post a Comment
<< Home