August 25, 2005

WOLF! WOLF!:

How to effectively confront nuclear threat from terrorists (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, 8/25/05, USA Today)

[S]top nations such as North Korea and Iran, which on President Bush's watch have greatly expanded nuclear programs, from joining up with the evil ideology of al-Qaeda.

In the past three years, North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, kicked out the international inspectors monitoring its nuclear activities, and claimed to have reprocessed fuel rods yielding enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons. Iran is working on processes that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons. And neither regime has shown much hesitation in working with terrorists.

Yet, with both Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration has sat by for years and let others deal with the threat. We can no longer outsource national security to the European Union or nations such as China.


Oh, no. We fell for that WMD guff last time and ended up invading a perfectly innocent Iraq. Now we're supposed to fall for the same line from the same folks as regards Iran and North Korea and then have the Democrats bail on us when it turns out they don't have nukes. No, thanks.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 25, 2005 5:20 PM
Comments

North Korea tested its first nuke in 1998, according to the Asia Times.

I doubt that there was anything that Governor Bush of Texas could have done to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear technology throughout the 90s.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 25, 2005 5:27 PM

So Bush and GOP are supposed to behave responsibly and take the heat now so that when St.Hillary's coronation day arrives, she can concentrate on the important stuff like her "gov't as first resort" domestic policy and not be distracted by all that military stuff.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 25, 2005 5:33 PM

This would seem to be the logical end of the multilateral yellow brick road. Bribes to the North Koreans and Iranians through intermediaries have proved ineffective, so now voices will rise to insist we offer them in person. Should be against the law to have this kind of fun.

Posted by: joe shropshire at August 25, 2005 5:46 PM

Michael:

So now we're going to war on the basis of magazine articles?

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 5:58 PM

I like their 3 part plan:

1) Find all missing nuclear material in the world.
2) Make sure North Korea and Iran don't become evil.
3) Decimate our own nuclear capabilities in case North Korea does become evil so to avoid a nuclear war.

I think they should add:

4) Stop all earthquakes from happening ever again.
5) Invent time machine.
6) Staff our army entirely with sasquatches so as to avoid killing our sons and daughters.

Posted by: Shelton at August 25, 2005 6:07 PM

OJ: When did we get so picky? If it was good enough for TR, it's good enough for us.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 6:15 PM

Three paragraphs that will have to be filed in the memory hole if we ever undertake military action against Iran or North Korea.

**********

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Posted by: Pat Phillips at August 25, 2005 6:18 PM

TR got us into WWI, which is unforgivable.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 6:28 PM

[Spit Take] Pelosi & Reid are HAWKS! [/Spit Take]

Posted by: John Resnick at August 25, 2005 6:53 PM

So now we're going to war on the basis of magazine articles?

My point was simply that NoKo went nuclear on Pres. Clinton I's watch, but now that you mention it, I thought that you were a booster of an "open source data-mining" style of Intell ?

So, yes, if enough corroboration can be found.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 25, 2005 6:54 PM

Michael:

Zionist dupe.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 7:22 PM

OJ: No he didn't, but thanks for getting me to reread America and the World War, on which more later.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 7:26 PM

David:

He elected Wilson.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 7:29 PM

Whatever happened to the global test? Did we flunk?

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 25, 2005 8:37 PM

Yeah, I knew what you meant. But even if there were "but-for" causation, which is unknowable, that still doesn't make him morally culpable for all of Wilson's idiocies. Wilson gets all the blame for Wilson that doesn't go to the American people.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 8:45 PM

No TR, no Wilson presidency.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 8:56 PM

No George Washington, no Wilson presidency. No Abraham Lincoln, no Wilson presidency (of the United States, at least). Hardly seems useful. More to the point, it's neither avoidable nor morally culpable. For that matter, it has nothing to do with the Spanish-American War, brought to us by a newspaper.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 9:15 PM

Washington didn't run for a third term against Adams or he would indeed be to blame for Jefferson.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 9:37 PM

And his decision not to do so doesn't make him morally responsible for everything Adams did as President.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 11:00 PM

Of course he's responsible for Adams being elected though.

Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 11:04 PM

Yes, much more directly than TR is for Wilson's election, which TR opposed, and yet Adams' actions are still his own, not Washington's.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 25, 2005 11:58 PM

TR opposed Taft's re-election, guaranteeing Wilson's election. Washington supported Adams, who won.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 12:26 AM

So, if I'm following Orrin's little game of "What if" correctly, Ross Perot is directly responsible for 9/11! It's astounding how Orrin holds people resposible for events that nobody at the time could have possibly predicted. Do you seriously think TR was twirling his moustache and saying, "I'm going to cause World War I! Hahahaha!" Get grip Orrin. Your view of history is as hateful and revisionist as anything Howard Zinn burped up.

Posted by: Governor Breck at August 26, 2005 6:04 AM

TR ran for President. He opposed Taft. He opposed Wilson. Arguably, if he hadn't run, Wilson would not have been elected, but TR didn't run because Taft was overwhelmingly popular. Even if TR's candidacy was a but/for cause of Wilson's presidency, and even if Wilson's presidency is a but/for cause of our entry into WWI, which is also unknowable, it still would not be true that "TR got us into WWI" or that his actions are "unforgivable."

For that matter, it seems likely that, if the US hadn't entered the war, Germany would not have lost, its economy wouldn't have collapsed, it wouldn't have elected the Nazis and we could have avoided WWII. That doesn't make TR the greatest monster in history, responsible for the deaths of 100 million people.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 26, 2005 8:38 AM

Gov:

No, Ross Perot is responsible for the Clinton presidency. Bill Clinton isn't responsible for 9-11.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 8:48 AM

David:

Yes, had TR not run Wilson wouldn't have won. That's unforgivable, as witness that he's Democrats favorite Republican and Republicans least. He was who you think McCain is.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 8:51 AM

Uh, wasn't it you know a good thing that the US entered WW1 and enabled the defeat of Imperial Germany?

A victorious German empire would not have been a good thing and it would most definitely had tilted against the USA in it's bid for global domination.

Where Wilson messed up was his horrendous behaviour regarding the League of Nations.

oj: TR seems to get plenty of praise from the Repubs I know. Nixon on the other hand....

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at August 26, 2005 9:15 AM

The entry into WW1 by the US was a disaster. Imperial Germany was exhausted and in any event no real threat to us. Eventually a settlement would have occurred. England would still have been around. The entire course of European history would have changed, probably for the better since it could hardly have been worse.

Posted by: Bob at August 26, 2005 10:12 AM

Ah, so now it's letting Wilson in that is unforgivable. Wilson was a lousy president and a lousy human being, but he was elected by a plurality, just like all the other presidents.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 26, 2005 11:10 PM

Yes, Taft would have won with a majority as he had in '08. No Democrat could win a majority.

Posted by: oj at August 26, 2005 11:13 PM

Probably. Doesn't mean that TR got us into WWI, or that he can't be forgiven for running for president.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 27, 2005 10:55 AM

no Wilson, no war. No TR, no Wilson.

Posted by: oj at August 27, 2005 11:01 AM

Yes, I understand the but/for causation. But/for causation does not make TR morally responsible for everything Wilson did. For that matter, it is likely that other presidents besides Wilson would have gotten into the war. We do love a good war, after all.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 27, 2005 12:04 PM

no, he was responsible for electing a Democrat. The GOP was too isolationist to get into a European War.

Posted by: oj at August 27, 2005 12:08 PM

No, it wasn't.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 27, 2005 3:02 PM

We desire peace, the peace of justice and right, and believe in maintaining a strict and honest neutrality between the belligerents in the great war in Europe. We must perform all our duties and insist upon all our rights as neutrals without fear and without favor. We believe that peace and neutrality, as well as the dignity and influence of the United States, cannot be preserved by shifty expedients, by phrase-making, by performances in language, or by attitudes ever changing in an effort to secure votes or voters. The present Administration has destroyed our influence abroad and humiliated us in our own eyes. The Republican party believes that a firm, consistent, and courageous foreign policy, always maintained by Republican Presidents in accordance with American traditions, is the best, as it is the only true way, to preserve our peace and restore us to our rightful place among the nations.

We believe in the pacific settlement of international disputes, and favor the establishment of a world court for that purpose.

Your point?

Posted by: oj at August 27, 2005 3:49 PM
« CHANGING THE CULTURE: | Main | NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN »