October 9, 2006
ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES....Glenn Kessler reports that senior members of the Bush administration, far from being shocked and appalled at North Korea's nuclear test, have been looking forward to the day it finally happened:
A number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power.
...."This fundamentally changes the landscape now," one U.S. official said last night.
Let's recap: The Bush/Cheney administration took a bad situation with Iraq and made it even worse. They've taken a bad situation with Iran and made it even worse (see here, here, and here). They've taken a bad situation with North Korea and made it even worse (see Fred Kaplan here). At every step along the way, they've deliberately taken actions that cut off any possibility of solving our geopolitical problems with anything other than military force.
Once is a singular event. Twice might be a coincidence. But three times? That's a policy. Encouraging these "clarifying events" appears to be the main goal of the Bush administration. This is not the way to make America safer.
—Kevin Drum 2:51 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (67)
You got it, Kevin. It's policy.
It's how we make the world simple enough for George III to understand: Yes, it's us against them. All of them.
Posted by: Fleabag on October 9, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK
But we are the Holy Roman Empire. So it's ok.
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK
Encouraging these "clarifying events" appears to be the main goal of the Bush administration. This is not the way to make America safer.
Completely wrong. It does make America safer. The problem with the liberal attitude toward North Korea is it lacks moral clarity. Liberals believe they can bargain with Kim Jong II but that's impossible. One can't make deals with a crazy madman. He's a lunatic. He can't be reasoned with. The only thing he understands is force.
The bomb test helps gives us moral clarity that the only way to deal with North Korea is by militarily bombing and invading it. America has the means to destroy this nuclear terrorist threat. Now all we need is the will to destroy it.
Posted by: Al on October 9, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK
And don't forget the clarification produced by the latest Israeli-Lebanese war.
Posted by: Ross Best on October 9, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK
"One can't make deals with a crazy madman. He's a lunatic. He can't be reasoned with. The only thing he understands is force."
Now who does that remind me of??
Posted by: Dave on October 9, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK
Wrong again, Kevin. George W. Bush sees the dangers facing the U.S. and acts to protect our citizens from them. Liberals like you and Michael Moore would rather wait until an event that takes even more lives than 9/11 occurs before acting. It is time to live up to the ideals of this nation and of John Wayne, my hero. We learned a long time ago that the only way to have a safe world is by being in charge of it. Only those nations we say can have nuclear weapons and we are entitled to change our minds about them, so they better be careful. One day, standing in the rubble that is left to the world, your grandchildren will thank George W. Bush for having the courage to fight terrorists and liberals because they will see that the pile of rubble is much higher over terrorist nations and over liberals than it is over good Christian conservatives like George W. Bush.
Posted by: Al on October 9, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK
My dog, the Als are multiplying!
Run! Run away!
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK
One can't make deals with a crazy madman. He's a lunatic. He can't be reasoned with. The only thing he understands is force....
Posted by: Al on October 9, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK
What worries me is that you're probably right - inasmuch as your statement applies to Mr. Bush.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 9, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
A safe America doesn't vote Republican.
Posted by: S Ra on October 9, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.
Richard Perle, noted wingnut
This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.
This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks, men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war.
Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian
Posted by: cynic on October 9, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK
“Citizens of Oceania! Together we will crush our enemies, and our long road to victory will be over!”
Also, since we're at war, certain rights must be curtailed to preserve Liberty. Oh, and keep shopping.
Posted by: josef on October 9, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK
The world is making itself worse. It is only the courageous courage of our confident commander in chief, George W Bush, that can contain and crush this evil, so that we can continue to live free and sexually gratified.
Posted by: Al on October 9, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin, as expected another limp-wristed response. Something that liberals like you will never understand is that "those people" only understand force. So we've got to give them force. Gotta go and shoot some unarmed deer.
Posted by: mrjauk on October 9, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK
Favorite line in the article:
Many top U.S. officials were determined to kill the Agreed Framework, and when U.S. intelligence discovered evidence that North Korea had a clandestine program to enrich uranium, they had their chance.
In other words, North Korea's breaking of the agreement was the "excuse" for breaking the agreement.
Posted by: elmendorf on October 9, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK
Wait, so I'm confused. Does this mean the Bible puts Armageddon in Korea?
Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK
Calm down. Don't pee in your pink panties yet.
Have you heard of game theory? This is just a part of the tactics to scare them.
Posted by: jay on October 9, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK
http://www.ronsuskind.com/articles/000106.html:
Colin Powell, for one, seemed startled. This would reverse 30 years of policy -- since the Nixon administration -- of American engagement. Such a move would unleash Sharon, Powell countered, and tear the delicate fabric of the Mideast in ways that might be irreparable. Bush brushed aside Powell's concerns impatiently. "Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things."
Posted by: Henry on October 9, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
Republicans are now certain to start carrying on like its WWIII, staging nuclear bomb drills and holding seminars on 'what to tell the children about armageddon'.
Posted by: cld on October 9, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
Alright — nuclear explosions are good for us!
It must be interesting, Al, to be right all the time when everyone else sees you as a drooling infant knocking over other kids' blocks and then acting like a hero for doing it. No, wait, that's YOUR hero, the Mighty Bush. Whew... is it ever time for a diaper change!
Posted by: Kenji on October 9, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
They value clarity above safety.
Unsurprising.
Posted by: adam on October 9, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK
Maybe it all just a fiat accomplice, a chorus of bogus warnings designed to try and get FoleyGate off the front pages.
Fred Kaplan has jump the gun here, as have we all.
And this:
...."This fundamentally changes the landscape now," one U.S. official said last night.
No, I don't think so.
Is this going to be the bait and switch that didn't work? It appears to be a false alarm, BACK to Foleygate.
Man, you should have heard all those calls coming in this morning on C-Span because nobody was interested in North Korea at all. It was all about the shameless Christian right. It was great!
Some shameless Bush boot-lick call to remind liberals of Clinton.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 9, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK
So what? Who gives a shit? The silly little sissy is ringed by nuclear nations; big whoop that he's probably got a couple of nasty surface devices to seal off the two possible invasion routes from the south that his paranoid little mind envisions. Yawn. If he's a threat, so was Grenada and Panama. He better be careful or China will spank his ass.
Time for the foaming mouths and ranting heads to get busy on this. I can hear it now....
But I'm a Korean War veteran and I say Yawn.
Posted by: buddy66 on October 9, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK
Hey, who's going to play Kim in ABC's "The Road to Pyongyang"?
Certainly, there's Bobby Lee from Mad TV, but color-blind casting could work, too.
Suggestions?
Posted by: Kenji on October 9, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK
I'm not sure what exactly "tough actions designed to destabalize" means. Is that a call for military force, or just for a new round of he-man rhetoric?
Posted by: zip on October 9, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK
Well, that;s one less nuke in NK's arsenal, so I too welcome the test. In fact, I hope Kim Jong Il decides to blow another one. That'll waste about 1/4th of his nukes.
Posted by: Pocket Rocket on October 9, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK
We must be a "ligthning rod" for democracy. Support Bush. Let's democratize these axis of evil through war. We must be promote and evangelize Christianity , for only through knowing GOD can the citizen of those countries be saved from Hell. Support Bush is a support for GOD and Christianity. Anything else is for the devil and satan.
Posted by: Left Behind Advocate on October 9, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK
ahh, you didn't quote it right-- from the Wild Things screenplay:
"I spent some time in military
intelligence, and we had a saying there:
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.
This is twice for you, Duquette...
and I intend to see to it
that there is no third time."
Posted by: beowulf on October 9, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK
The fear is someone instigating a first-strike with nuclear weapons. The reality is that based on their ideology, immorality and the lack of alternative military abilities, the U.S. is the country most likely to initiate a nuclear first strike.
If there is a hell, all of Bushco deserves to go there.
Posted by: hopeless pedant on October 9, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK
Once is a singular event. Twice might be a coincidence. But three times? That's a policy.
What part of "Stay the Course" haven't you been paying attention to?
Posted by: asdf on October 9, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK
Typical passive agressive shitheads.
Posted by: Matt on October 9, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK
To all fake 'Al' posters, please give it a rest. It's just not funny anymore.
Posted by: Not AL on October 9, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK
We're going to cut off the sale of luxury items to those little yellow reds! They'll sit in the dark and be really sorry they messed with us.
Posted by: Wingnut on October 9, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK
Sure it's a clarifying event.
But what it's going to clarify is that, when it comes to N Korea, Bush is all talk and no action.
Bush has done more to demonstrate the limits of US power, and to suggest US weakness, than all previous Presidents combined.
The Iraqis and Iranians already sneer at us. Now the N. Koreans will.
Fine object lessons there, neocons. What happens when every once in a while you take a shitty little country, put it up against a wall, try to beat the shit out of it, and instead it kicks you hard in the balls?
The neocons have made sure we and the entire planet find out.
Posted by: frankly0 on October 9, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin, I read Kaplan's entry that you linked to. So what? Are you really advocating doing what is necessary to prevent North Korea from acquiring even more expertise in nuclear weaponry? If you are not, then I really don't see how the Bush Administration can really be blamed, by you, for doing nothing to prevent it. Or are you implying that the Bush Administration could have used more diplomacy to prevent this? Really, what is the basis for this belief? All of the evidence suggests that the North Koreans are untrustworthy negotiators since they have admitted to violating the agreement reached during Clinton's administration.
Absent actual military action, there is nothing that can be done by the United States to stop or retard North Korea's nuclear capability. The reality is that we will have to live with this development, whether we like it or not.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 9, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK
Ah, Kevin.
Bush has it exactly right. You don't reward these guys by sitting down at a table with them and legitimizing their power. These are crooks and kooks, plain and simple. The only thing these guys understand is force. Witness Lybia.
If you guys had your way, Kerry would be standing on a dais right about now, waving some ratty piece of paper and exclaiming "Piece in our time," while Ahmadinajad's thugs goosestepped right into Jerusalem.
Posted by: egbert on October 9, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK
Good God. Can't the entire bush administration go on a two year vacation and leave the world the hell alone?
Posted by: razorboy on October 9, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK
Absent actual military action, there is nothing that can be done by the United States to stop or retard North Korea's nuclear capability.
And what can the US possibly do militarily that wouldn't worsen the situation a hundred fold?
N. Korea has massive artillery positioned to rain destruction on S Korea, and a likely madman at its helm. What happens if we engage in a serious military action against N. Korea?
Can even a neocon be dumb enough to pull the trigger here?
Posted by: frankly0 on October 9, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK
Egbert
Sorry to disturb your alternative reality, but we negotiated with Khadafi and Libya. And in his day he was every bit as much a demon as present day Iranians and North Koreans.
Or did the media not report on the invasion/bombing of Libya over the past six years?
Posted by: hopeless pedant on October 9, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK
We're beyond "Ends justify means" and into "Abandon the ends to justify the means"
Posted by: Boronx on October 9, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK
frankly0,
Yes, military action would a risky course to take, and not one I would advocate; but I am trying to understand Drum's criticisms since I don't think he is an advocate of such action either. This seems to be another case the "blame Bush" syndrome, and in the face of all the evidence that Bush could have taken no effective action that Drum would have actually supported.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 9, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK
Good Egbert! (clapping) And Bush has beautiful legs too!
Posted by: Upperclass Twit on October 9, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK
Hey, who's going to play Kim in ABC's "The Road to Pyongyang"? Certainly, there's Bobby Lee from Mad TV, but color-blind casting could work, too.
Suggestions? Posted by: Kenji
Phil Gramm's wife? Why not, it worked for Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously?
Don King? He's got the hair.
Posted by: JeffII on October 9, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK
Yancey,
My guess is that Kevin would advocate roughly the policy of Clinton: carrots, sticks, and talk.
The only thing worse than this policy is all other policies.
Posted by: frankly0 on October 9, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK
The only thing worse than this policy is all other policies.
franklynO: Tou-frickin-che'
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK
On the subject of not making American safer, CNN had a headline POLLS show that most people want Hastert to resign his post.
and this:
The Republican Party has seen the support of people like Jeannette Hopkins evaporate.
A 30-year-old married mother of two and a Republican, Hopkins voted for President Bush in 2004. But she says she probably will support the Democrat in her congressional district this fall "because of the way that everything's been handled" with the GOP in charge of Congress and Bush in the White House.
"We're in a really scary place right now," Hopkins said recently. She vented about what she called the gone-on-too-long Iraq war, a sluggish economy, the bungled Hurricane Katrina response and a continuing terrorism threat.
She blamed Republicans as she hustled down an alley to the office she manages in this Louisville, Kentucky, suburb.
Votes like hers could decide which party controls the House and Senate after the November 7 vote.
Poll results and interviews with political analysts indicate the GOP has lost ground with a voting group that helped the party keep hold of Congress and the White House in 2002 and 2004. Married moms have become a volatile swing group just as Democrats need to gain 15 GOP-held House seats and six in the Senate to win control of Capitol Hill.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 9, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK
The Rapture may not be far off. But Bush and company, including supporters, may be the only ones left on earth.
Posted by: Vincennes on October 9, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, military action would a risky course to take, and not one I would advocate; but I am trying to understand Drum's criticisms since I don't think he is an advocate of such action either. This seems to be another case the "blame Bush" syndrome, and in the face of all the evidence that Bush could have taken no effective action that Drum would have actually supported. Posted by: Yancey Ward
First of all, the Bush administration could have stayed engage, rather than cutting off talks begun during the Clinton administration. Then, along with the "16 words" in that state of the union address, the could have omitted the childish and utterly counterproductive "axis of evil" nonsense.
But of course, Yancey, none of this or anything else that might have at least kept this relationship and others in stasis was possible because we are talking about the Bush administration.
In the end, I think you can pretty much blame anything you want on the Bush team as it hasn't had a single foreign policy success in six years. In fact, I can't think of a single positive action taken by Bush.
Posted by: JeffII on October 9, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK
I have a hunch that this time the tactic is going to rebound strongly against the administration. Why? The Bush Administration can't point to a single foreign policy success. At this point the American people are wondering if the administration is capable of solving any problem.
The North Korean atomic test might have been welcome news for the White House in a difficult campaign season if it had any foreign policy bonefides. It doesn't. It won't help. The Republicans are going down.
Posted by: Ron Byers on October 9, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin Drum >"...This is not the way to make America safer."
True but it sure does help with the Carlyle Group`s bottom line(s)
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." - George Orwell (1937)
Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK
frankly0,
Clinton's policy was useless since the North Koreans have admitted to violating it almost from the beginning. My point is that it appears any policy absent military action, the stick you mentioned, was going to fail in this case. The North Koreans were going to make nuclear weapons (or try to make them since it is not yet conclusive that they have succeeded), and it matters not what we think.
We can either take military action, or we can simply live with the consequences of a nuclear-armed North Korea. Other options don't exist at the moment.
As for your implied question in your earlier comment, the Bush Administration will take no military action.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 9, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK
More Orwell: The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
Posted by: cleek on October 9, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK
"This seems to be another case the "blame Bush" syndrome, and in the face of all the evidence that Bush could have taken no effective action"
Yancy Ward, this is anothe example of why your side ought not to be trusted with national security issues, you don't do nuance, or some such thing.
Do you understand the difference between plutonium and uranium?
N. Korea had enough plutonium to make several bombs. Clinton cut a deal with them: don't make bombs out of your plutonium, accept an inspection regime, and we'll give you technical assistance to build reactors that don't produce plutonium as a by-product.
N. Korea accepts the deal and doesn't build plutonium bombs--but does begin to research the MUCH more difficult task of building bombs from uranium. Meanwhile, Bush takes office, and won't fund the technical assistance. Oh, but helpfully, he waives the inspection regime. Meanwhile, he engages in a lot of posturing about "regime change" and "axis of evil", and refuses to negotiate with the N. Koreans.
Note that N. Korea is still years away from a uranium bomb--the bomb yesterday seems to have been made with plutonium.
Had we stuck with the deal Clinton made, there would be no N. Korean bomb today.
Posted by: rea on October 9, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, that will forever end the debate: now that N. Korea has nukes, we will have no choice but to use diplomacy.
Posted by: Charming Betsy on October 9, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK
rea,
I understand the difference between plutonium and uranium. I also understand that North Korea was believed to have already processed enough of the spent rods to produce weapons before the 1994 agreement, and that only further processing of the rods was stopped by the agreement.
Confronted with the evidence that North Korea was also pursuing an uranium enrichment program, which will eventually be successful(if it hasn't ready been), what are the viable options other than those I have already mentioned?
Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 9, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin,
That scenario would explain the guilty look on W's face after he was informed by Andrew Card that we were under attack. There was no look of surprise in my opinion, just the, kind of, "oh, oh, here we go" facial expression as he hunkered down and continued with "My Pet Goat" for another seven minutes.
I keep thinking, more all the time, that they intentionally let 9/11 happen so they could put the fear of terrorists into the religeous right, along with their habitual fear of God, to make them, and their votes, even more controllable. This administration habitually uses propaganda for the cynical manipulation of the unsophisticated millions among us.
It IS all about power. They have used Osama by allowing him to think he is using them. They are much more dangerous than Osama because they control the American economy along with the military. They think they are morally correct in what they are doing and actually believe they can tame and control the whole world. They are jongoism gone mad.
It appears however, enough people are becoming privy to their tactics. They can be stopped by more and more of us accepting the truth and deciding to do something about it.
Will they now spring their Osama 'October Surprise'? It just may be too late.
Posted by: alapip on October 9, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK
They do make it easy to at least head down the conspiracy-theory path. I always turn back around, but the path is getting wider and easier to navigate every fucking day.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK
oops - that should read 'jingoism'.
and, of course, these are my personal opinions, but backed up by many happenings that would support these conclusions, I think.
Posted by: alapip on October 9, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK
Bingo. The Republicans have been doing this since MacArthur used the Marines as bait to get the Chinese in the Korean War. Then came the Bay of Pigs.
Sometimes they like to sabotage peace negotiations, like they did with the South Vietnamese in 1968, or with Iran in 1970.
Sometimes they're creating enemies like OBL and his merry band. Basically they're warmongers and dictator-huggers, sometimes attacking, sometimes just supporting a dictatorship to store up a little hatred for us among people who want to be free.
Stay tuned, folks. It may not be too late for that worldwide nuclear exchange they've always wanted.
Younger people who never studied 'duck and cover' can probably find the old pamphlets in any urban school where most of the students are black, right along with all the other 1954 textbooks those schools are still using.
Posted by: serial catowner on October 9, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK
The Japanese and South Koreans are worried about North Korea having nuclear bombs. But they are terrified of the possibility that the North Korean government might be overthrown. I hope the Bush administration has noticed that when you remove a long-standing autocratic government, people generally don't hold hands and sing "We are the world." In North Korea's case, there probably wouldn't be an insurgency, but South Korea and China would be inundated with refugees.
Posted by: wally on October 9, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK
The Japanese and South Koreans are worried about North Korea having nuclear bombs. But they are terrified of the possibility that the North Korean government might be overthrown.
By whom? An internal coup would, in all likelihood, be carried out by people willing to reunited the nation. Otherwise, the sooner KJI is gone the better for everyone in the region.
I hope the Bush administration has noticed that when you remove a long-standing autocratic government, people generally don't hold hands and sing "We are the world." In North Korea's case, there probably wouldn't be an insurgency, but South Korea and China would be inundated with refugees. Posted by: wally
Tough titties to the Chinese, as they are largely responsible for the situation we have today. But how, pray tell, would the south become "inundated with refugees" across a DMZ so heavily mined that birds need a map? And Japan would suspend the weekly ferry to the north as well.
I would be willing to bet that most of the people in the north are still relatively clueless about the south. In fact, the majority might actually believe that their kin in the south want to eat their children, sell their women folk into nail salons all across America, and make the men open even more dry cleaning businesses in NYC.
No. The south does not want a collapse. There definitely needs to be a transition period like that which occured for East Germany. The only upside is that the north has a relatively small population.
But a flood across the border, by land or sea, is unlikely.
Posted by: JeffII on October 9, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK
a couple of points-
the norks only declared they had nuclear weapons in 2003. It is clear that while they began a centerfuge program- this wasnt specifically outlawed by the 1994 agreement- they mostly abided by the treaty. And their plutonium remainded acounted for and under lock and key.
Clearly they could be dealt with, and frankly the idea that we could not come up with some type of intrusive inspection regime that would satisfy our concerns is ridiculous.
Now that the Norks have nukes, what exactly do we do when they start selling them to the highest bider? Should we just tell the south koreans in Seoul to kiss their asses good bye right now?
Or do we wait until a major japanese city disappears in a mushroom cloud?
Moral clarity my ass. yknow during the cuban missile crisis, JFK was surrounded by military men calling for invasion. Thank god he didnt fall for idiots calling for "moral clarity". Seems the USSr had sent over one hundred nuclear bombs before the missiles including at least 90 tactical nuclear landmines. Imagine if our invasion force disappeared into a mushroom cloud....
Posted by: aaron on October 9, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK
Now that the Norks have nukes, what exactly do we do when they start selling them to the highest bider?
We could do what we did with Pakistan: name them a "major non-NATO ally" despite them being a terrorist-supporting, WMD proliferating, tyrannical regime, and let them give a symbolic slap on the wrist to some underling and pretend the whole proliferation thing was a one-man job that the government knew nothing about.
Posted by: cmdicely on October 10, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK