North Korea 2; Democrats 0
Sep 12, 2009 Political
The North Koreans play the Democrats like a cheap fiddle. First Bill Clinton negotiated with Lil Kim and ended up giving him all the things he needed to make nukes. With a wink and a nod Clinton gave Kim all the stuff he needed on a promise from Kim that he would not use them to make nuclear weapons. The ink was not dry on the paper when Kim began developing a nuke. The left likes to blame the nuclear weapon development on Bush because it was tested when Bush was in office but it began when Clinton was there and the NorKs used the tools that Clinton let them have.
There have been talks with North Korea for a number of years now. These six party talks are on again and off again depending upon what mood Kim is in and which of the voices in his schizophrenic head is doing the talking. We have tried these six party talks and we have tried sanctions when Kim detonates a nuke but nothing seems to work because it is difficult to get international support. The Chinese have a great deal of influence but they seem uninterested in intervening.
George Bush did not help things when he decided we could remove North Korea from the state sponsor of terrorism list. North Korea is dangerous and poor. That country will do anything for money and that includes selling nuclear components to terrorists. The idea that sitting down with them and discussing the issue will help is ridiculous because each time we engage in diplomacy it is after we have done something to appease them and it gives them more time to work on their weapons. We always end up in a stalemate with North Korea because once it gets what it wants it goes back to developing nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration has done an about face and said that it will now engage directly with North Korea.
The US shifted its policy today, saying it is now willing to meet one on one with North Korea if that is helpful to bring Pyongyang back to the nuclear negotiations. ABC News
Evidently, the six party nations have given the go ahead because they are not doing well in their attempts to negotiate. If these six nations cannot effectively negotiate with Kim what makes anyone believe the US can do any better?
Obama said he was willing to meet our enemies face to face and without preconditions. His lack of experience in foreign affairs was evident when he made that statement on the campaign trail but it made no difference. So now the US will meet with North Korea in order to get it to stop making nuclear weapons.
Good luck with that. North Korea will demand something and the US will give it and then the negotiations will fall off, or stall, or be dragged on to provide time while the NorKs refine their weapons.
I would hope that we could negotiate with North Korea but the leader has demonstrated that he is mentally unstable and that he is not interested in capitulating to the demands of others.
How will it look if we give them more of what they want and they still test a nuke or send one in the direction of Japan?
Will the left discuss the failed polices of Obama like it did Bush? We will have to wait until the next nuclear detonation (and there will be one) but I doubt it will be viewed through the same lens that was used when liberals watched George Bush.
Time will tell but I think the US already appears weak. We blinked and gave in and now Kim has the upper hand. I know Obama is Mr. Charm and all that but he is being played like a fool.
This might come back to bite him in his tail and that is just fine.
The problem is, it might bite the rest of us as well.
I would like to see successful negotiations and if it works out then good for Obama and his team. I think history has shown us that this will not have a good outcome and we will regret the decision.
Of course, Clinton was there not too long ago. He might have greased a few skids (no, skids are not North Korean women) so that the path for Obama would be easier. Maybe Kim already got his payoff and will make Obama look good.
Until he makes him look bad…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, Clinton, north korea, nuclear weapons, Obama
Obama Took His Eye Off The Ball
Sep 3, 2009 Political
When George Bush was president we were attacked on 9/11/2001 and not long after we were at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. During that time the North Koreans used technology they acquired from Bill Clinton and enriched Plutonium. They then tested their nuclear program with an underground detonation. This took a lot of people by surprise because our intelligence agencies said North Korea was not close to having a device.
After the test the Democrats went nuts. The same Democrats who balked at Bush’s tough stance on Iran’s nuclear program were upset that he was not tough enough on North Korea. I know that we have to cut them slack because national security is not a strong point for the Democrats. They are the ones who believed a trumped up report indicating that Iran had stopped its program only to say that Iran is now engaged in nuclear development and a serious threat (though Obama said they were not a threat before he said they were).
When North Korea detonated its device the Democrats said that George Bush had failed in diplomacy and that he had taken his eye off the ball because he was distracted by Iraq.
“Today’s announcement is further evidence that President Bush has taken his eye off the ball, allowing a member of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ to allegedly test a nuclear weapon,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. DNC
“They have taken their eye off the real ball… ,” Kerry said of the Bush administration. “They took it off in North Korea and shifted it to Iraq.” And, Kerry suggested that, if Bush was reelected, the attention of the United States would continued to be misdirected — with an emphasis on military adventures in the Persian Gulf rather than diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula. The Nation
In an interview, he argued that President Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq let the North Korean crisis fester to the point that there were now indications that the country might be preparing to test a plutonium bomb. He presented his charges in a 15-minute telephone call he made to The New York Times. NYT
Yes, the minute North Korea detonated a nuke the left went nuts and accused Bush of taking his eye off the ball. No discussion ever included the deal Clinton made with the NorKs or that they were violating their promise to use reactors for peaceful purposes before the ink on the deal had dried. No, this was all Bush’s fault because he was too focused on Iraq and ignored the NorKs and diplomacy.
Barack Obama has been occupied of late. He has been busy for the last 6 months ramming bills through Congress in order to remake America (a goal of his) and to barrage the public with so many things that it becomes fatigued. He had the Stimulus, the Omnibus, the Cap and Trade, the takeover of the banks and financial system as well as the acquisition of a couple of major automobile manufacturers. Now he is working feverishly to get a health care bill passed so the government can control even more of our lives. His attention has been on these undertakings and his surge in Afghanistan where more US service members are being killed.
So it now looks like Obama took his eyes off the ball with regard to North Korea. Today that country announced that it was in the final stages of enriching Uranium which it claims will give it a second path to nuclear weapons. Barack Obama’s focus on remaking America has caused him to take his eye off the ball in North Korea and amounts to failed diplomacy.
Obama allowed the North Koreans, the same people the Democrats said were dangerous and unwatched when Bush was president, to get to the final stages of Uranium enrichment and now the world is a more dangerous place.
This is Barack Obama’s failed diplomacy. A nuclear weapon delivered from North Korea (or sold by them) will be his fault.
If it was true for Bush then it is true for Obama.
Other Sources:
World Sentinel
Washington Post
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, Clinton, failed diplomacy, north korea, nuclear weapons, Obama, plutonium, uranium
Sheehan Now Goes After Obama
Aug 28, 2009 Political
Will she still be darling of the left?
Barack Obama is off on his vacation this week (destroying the country is tough work) and he ran into a bunch of people who are still thrilled with him. That is, all but a few. Anti war protester Cindy Sheehan, the darling of the left when she harassed George W. Bush, turns out to be an equal opportunity moonbat. Sheehan is now near Obama’s vacation spot and will harass him for the troop build up in Afghanistan.
Poor Barack can’t catch a break. He ran for office pledging to end the wars and bring the troops home (frequencies changed from immediately to 16 months) but he decided that it might not be wise to leave the Middle East too soon. This drove his base nuts and his increase of troops in Afghanistan has sent them over the edge. Obama kept saying Afghanistan was where the focus should be but as soon as he focused there, it was not important any longer.
I am not opposed to any of the actions of the administration with regard to deploying troops to Afghanistan (except there should be a lot more of them) and I hope he decides that victory is the best exit strategy. I expect him to exert as much effort on winning in the Middle East as he did winning his current job. I am happy that he has adopted many of the tactics that George Bush employed. I know Obama has “repackaged” them so they are “not the same” but he is basically keeping what worked no matter how much he bashed it during the campaign.
Will Cindy Sheehan be the darling of the left after harassing Obama? Will they allow her to have her way as they did at Crawford or will they arrest her or otherwise force her to leave? The left is caught in between Barack and a hard place because it applauded Sheehan when she attacked Bush. How can they attack this poor woman who lost her son in a war? It will be interesting to see how she is portrayed now that the messiah is in office and the media are his cheerleading team.
Even before all of this some of Obama’s people were saying he has had it so tough that he needs a vacation from his vacation. Obama will go to Camp David after he returns from Massachusetts and will not be back in DC until after Labor Day. His vacation wore him out. According to White House spokesman Bill Burton:
On Monday, Burton pointed to former President George W. Bush’s vacation habits to defend scattered criticism of Obama’s August schedule.
“As I recall, the previous president [took] quite a bit of vacation himself, and I don’t think anyone bemoaned that,” Burton said. Politico
He does not think anyone bemonaed that? What planet was this guy living on? The left always carped that Bush was on vacation. Any discussion about 9/11 leads to people saying Bush was on vacation instead of reading intelligence briefings. The left constantly discussed the supposed 5 week vacation Bush took. It was addressed quite a bit by the left.
From the Washington Post:
President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of — nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.
The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.
Here is a site with jokes about Bush on vacation (some are quite funny).
Here is a CBS report that discusses how much time Bush spent at Camp David.
And here is one from the blowhards at the Huffington Post who cry about Bush going on vacation as the Middle East heats up. Anyone read where they made the same complaint about Obama going on vacation while his troop surge in Afghanistan is heating up?
Now personally I don’t care where Bush, Obama or any others go spend their time because they are not really on vacation. The job is an around the clock gig so even during “down time” they are getting briefed and making decisions. I bring it up to point out the stupidity of Burton’s remark. Of course the difference here is that Bush was seen as never working and his vacation was the reason for 9/11. Obama is seen as needing even more time off. Think anyone will blame Kennedy’s death on him? I mean, it did happen while he was on vacation (and in the same state to boot).
Back to Sheehan. She was a moonbat long before this and she will be one long after. I don’t think what she is doing serves any purpose just like I felt when she was doing it to Bush. The left though, celebrated her acts back then so now they have to live with the monster they created.
One of the last things Obama needs is someone like Sheehan reminding his base that he did not keep his word or that he is emulating George Bush with regard to the war.
They told me if I voted for McCain there would be an escalation in the war tempo.
They were right.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
So Where Was This Guy When Bush Was President
Aug 4, 2009 Political
A picture of Barack Obama with make up from the Joker character in the movie The Dark Knight has been popping up all over Los Angeles. The picture features Barack Obama with the white makeup, blackened eyes and red lipstick ala the Joker in the fashion portrayed by Heath Ledger. The photos have been appearing all over town and some folks are a might bit upset by that.
Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable (whatever that is) President Earl Hutchinson was not very happy with the pictures and he wants the person displaying them to make himself known.
“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”
I have never heard of this jackass Hutchinson before so he must not have taken a stance on the portrayals of George W Bush over the last 8 years. Where was Hutchinson and his concern for mean spirited acts that are dangerous when George Bush was portrayed as the Joker, the very same incarnation of the Joker, in Vanity Fair Magazine?
Vanity Fair’s version was seen by people all over the country but Hutchinson, as far as I am aware, never discussed how mean spirited and dangerous it was for a magazine to depict Bush as the Joker. Of course Bush never had the Socialist label applied to him but he was called a Nazi plenty of times and I still never heard Hutchinson talk about how dangerous this was.
Now that the Democrats have a messiah in the White House we are supposed to bow down and kiss his feet and things done are mean spirited and dangerous. The very same morons who were calling Bush every name in the book defend Obama at every turn and decry the same kinds of attacks they engaged in for 8 years. It is as if they have had their brains sucked dry of any memory of how they acted. They acted like deranged morons for 8 years and now they are upset with any behavior that attacks the sainted one?
I don’t think that the picture of Obama is mean spirited or dangerous. It certainly is not as dangerous as Obama is because the picture can’t destroy the country.
I have to agree that it was not right to depict Obama as the Joker.
A clown would have been more appropriate.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Speaker Of The House Can’t Speak For Herself
May 16, 2009 Political
Nancy Pelosi keeps digging the hole she is in deeper each time she opens her mouth. The video of her trying to lie her way out of the mess shows a flustered person grasping for words that can’t be shown untrue and for words that will appease the people listening. She is in a downward spiral and even though dyed in the wool liberals will defend and support her, America is seeing the true Pelosi. She is a calculating politician who only cares about power.
Case in point; she claimed that she was against the water boarding, that she was not, repeat not, informed about (how can one oppose that which one is unaware) because she was too focused on winning Democratic seats in Congress. That’s right, after 9/11 her concern was winning seats and not national security.
Pelosi has had many, I repeat many, versions of her story and they all contradict each other and they contradict the truth. I believe Hillary would call it a willing suspension of disbelief. According to Pelosi, she did not know, was not, repeat, not informed, heard from someone else, and then knew about it. Along the way she has ticked off more than a few professionals in the intelligence community. You see, Nancy called them liars.
Pelosi is backtracking on her recent claim that the CIA lied to Congress (and her) about the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. She now claims that she meant that the Bush administration was lying to her. I was wondering how long it would take her to follow Obama’s lead and blame it all on Bush. That always seems to get the liberal base all riled up. The problem is, Pelosi clearly blamed the CIA. She is now saying that she did not mean them but her words at the time made it quite clear about whom she was talking. Here is what Pelosi said during her attempted backpedal:
“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” Pelosi said in a statement. The Hill
The reality is, she blamed the Bush administration AND she called the CIA liars. She specifically said that the CIA misleads Congress ALL THE TIME. She did say the Bush administration misled Congress with regard to weapons of mass destruction but her words directly implicated the administration AND the CIA as liars. If she had only called the people in the Bush administration liars it is unlikely that Panetta would have released the memos and defended the Agency. He had to defend it because Pelosi directly attacked it. Here are a few of her quotes:
Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.
“They mislead us all the time,” she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree. Breitbart
“I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same time the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” Ms. Pelosi said. The New York Times
Here we have Pelosi clearly calling the CIA liars and saying that they misled Congress while Bush was misleading on WMD (which he was not).
As anyone who is not a Kool Aid drinking liberal can see, Pelosi was clear and she meant what she said but now that she has ticked off the intelligence folks even more, she had to say she only meant the Bush administration. She mentioned them BOTH and there is no doubt about what she meant.
This woman is the Speaker of the House. She can’t even speak for herself.
As my other writer Blake says, she is on medication but to me it looks like she forgot to take it or the dose needs to be increased.
Remember, Pelosi was more concerned with getting Democrats elected than protecting the country or paying attention to her job.
She is a typical Democrat and she needs to step down as Speaker.
Then, the people in San Fran need to vote Gaspy Pelosi out of office.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Bush, CIA, democrat, lies, Obama, Pelosi, water boarding