July 5, 2006
Dems Still Surrendering to DPRK
The hullabaloo (not yet a kerfuffle) over baby Kim's Fourth-of-July fireworks show amongst the media and Democrat pols is truly baffling. "Madeline Albright tells us that North Korea is stuck in the 1950's as a society, to which I say, "Didn't they have electric lights back then? I don't know, I'm not that old." But the point is, how can you impose economic sanctions on an economic null?
"General" Wesley Clark and Governor/Ambassador/Senator Bill Richardson calmly lecture that this is just North Korea's way of "behaving like a spoiled child" in order to "get our attention" and "force us to negotiate incentive agreements" with them. Then they both suggest, in the very next breath, that we engage them in direct talks. Clark says, and I'm paraphrasing, "We are the world's superpower and it is our responsibility to defuse this situation, and the only way to do that is to talk with them." He also said, "We need to work with them, and work against them." Multilateralists hearts must be all aflutter at this stunning display of nuance.
My prescription for North Korea: Exactly what the adminstration has done, and nothing more. If these missiles got close, they'd have been swatted. If one gets through and, NED forbid, a nuclear warhead explodes on US soil, there's a special red button in the Oval Office with North Korea's name on it.
North Korea Posted by JohnGalt at July 5, 2006 3:44 PM
I'd say the seventh missile brings it to an imbroglio. Two more is a contretemps, and then we're on to kerfuffle.
Posted by: jk at July 5, 2006 4:08 PMThere's one more thing the President should do to handle this "crisis." The next time a reporter asks him what he's going to do about it he should answer, "Our missiles are fully functional and one-hundred percent reliable. Their range is well known to the world. No test firings are required."
Posted by: johngalt at July 6, 2006 11:50 AMHmm, I am not sure that retaliatory strikes fits the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive miliary action. The doctrine seems to morph as it extends east. I agree however with the administration's stand on basically ignoring North Korea's posturing. Somehow this was not an option in Iraq though. I am not sure how we "swat" their missiles if they get close, unless maybe that Star Wars missile defense system did get up and running? Gen. Clark has it all wrong as well, forget responsibility, we simply can't diffuse the situation, the guy is a nut, even negotiation is hopeless with an unstable partner.
Posted by: silence dogood at July 6, 2006 2:27 PMNot necessarily directed at you, Silence, but I hear a lot of exasperation from administration critics at the difference between our treatment of Iraq and North Korea. I think that preventing Saddam Hussein from having the nukes that Kim Jung Il does gets glossed over. That, and he doesn't fire at our airplanes every day.
As NK gets closer to perfecting a delivery system, the President might come closer to conforming with his pre-Iraq stance.
General Clark's partisanship is unbelievable. He can make the rounds of TV shows, praising the job the Clinton Administration did in North Korea. Whew, sometimes I don't like MY job.
Posted by: jk at July 6, 2006 3:43 PMThe missile "swatting" system I referred to is described here:
http://voanews.com/english/2006-07-05-voa51.cfm
Posted by: johngalt at July 7, 2006 2:24 AM | What do you think? [5]