Thursday, October 12, 2006

The Elephant's Ass and a Bobble-Head

Yes, as Ann pointed out in her comments on my last post, I do have a lot to say about Shrubya's comments in regards to North Korea's nuclear ambitions... So I took the three separate posts I was working on and attempted to place them together into one cohesive discussion...
As you all know, Kim Jong Il had his country test what apparently was mostly a failure of a nuclear bomb recently. Now, I am in no way going to defend this cretin, but I am going to criticize the administrations response to this nuclear threat, but first, a quick digression...
If we invaded Iraq on the premise, or guess, of weapons of mass destruction (against the better judgment of Bush's father, Clinton, the entire so-called "liberals," and most of the countries in the U.N., why, when faced with a country that does have WMD and is a greater threat to our nation, won't we invade? Must be the logic of our small brained president... Nothing else he does makes any kind of sense, why would this? End digression.
Of course there are mitigating circumstances as to why we won't invade N. Korea. We are already involved in four distinctly separate wars:
  1. The failing "war on drugs" started by Shrubya Sr. (I know, but it's funny, isn't it?)
  2. The "war on terror" which we only make worse by our next two wars
  3. The war in Iraq
  4. The war in Afghanistan
With our military spread thinner than the shrinking polar ice caps which we also seem to do nothing about despite being a greater threat than Saddam ever was, Bush knows if he even considers invading either N. Korea or Iran, the American people will no longer stand for it (although I'm still hard-pressed to figure out why some of you are still backing this loser...)

Let's examine some of Bush's statements in regards to the news of the nuclear test, shall we?

Bush: "The United States remains committed to diplomacy. The United States also reserves all options to defend our friends and our interests in the region against the threats from North Korea."
Jay: If the U.S. is so interested in diplomacy, why won't we talk to North Korea one-on-one? North Korea has stated that they will stop the testing and such at least temporarily if the United States will agree to bilateral talks. But what does the administration say? "No, we will only talk to you if others can come to the party." How is that "committed to diplomacy" if we refuse to talk except on our terms? It's called compromising, you fucktard! Even if NK is lying about stopping, what have you to lose by talking one-on-one with them? Where's the harm? We've already lost face in so much of the world due to his bunglings and idiocy,what's the difference now?

Bush: "So in response to North Korea's provocation, we will increase defense cooperation with our allies, including cooperation on ballistic missile defense to protect against North Korean aggression, and cooperation to prevent North Korea from exporting nuclear and missile technologies."
Jay: So, NK says if we put pressure on them, they will view it as an act of war. Fine, view it however the hell you want, no skin off our backs. But not only do we refuse to talk to NK, now we will build up missiles and arms, proving Jong right in that we very well may attack, giving him even more reason to pursue his nuclear ambitions... Hello?! How does this solve anything? If anything, it's already been proven we're the only ones who even have a shot at getting through Kim's big-bobble-headed skull! They won't listen to China, S. Korea, Japan, or Russia--Jong has said flat out, "We will only talk to the U.S. one-on-one." So fuckin' talk to them! Don't aim missiles at them, proving them right in their fears of us attacking them, and then refuse to talk while saying you're "committed to diplomacy"!!

Not that this is bad enough, but McCain decided he needed to put in his two cents.

McCain: "I would remind Senator [Hillary] Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure."
Jay: Let's see, when did North Korea start testing missiles? When did they get scared we would invade? When did they become a threat?

Here is Clinton's policy in a nutshell, from
Senator Kerry: "The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the [nuclear fuel] rods were. This way, we don't know where the rods are. The rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better."

Hmm, they were talking, had inspections, knew the extent of NK's nuclear program... Bush refuses to talk, but won't invade, and as is his MO, will only aim missiles and threaten from afar... Which policy is better, which policy is better... Hmm...

McCain: "The worst thing we could do is to accede to North Korea's demand for bilateral talks. When has rewarding North Korea's bad behavior ever gotten us anything more than worse behavior?"
Jay: Suddenly talking is a reward... Who knew? (No wonder Mom likes to talk so much!! She feels she's rewarding her kids!! :D) Can someone explain the logic in McCain's statement to me, please? Am I missing something? Parents, when your kids are doing something you don't want them to do, do you just flatly refuse to talk to them while aiming guns at their bedroom door? Do you invite the neighborhood over to negotiate your disagreement with your child? Or do you gently knock on the door and just try to get them to communicate, to figure out where their coming from, and talk it out? "That's not the same!" you cry, but give me some type of concrete example of how talking to NK is a "reward." Cause it isn't.

It's just classic Bush administration stubbornness along the lines of "I'm always right; I'm an American president, emperor of the world, and I can do whatever I damn well please. I'm too stupid to understand the Geneva conventions, even though they've been around for quite some time and no one else seemed to have an issue with them, but to hell with that!"

Bush: North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time -- long before I came into office.
Jay: Yeah, and we knew where the nuclear stuff was and how it was being handled...

Bush: And it's a threat that we've got to take seriously. And we do, of course.
Jay: As seriously as you took your C- average in college, apparently...

Bush: In 1994, the government -- our government [Clinton's administration] entered into a bilateral arrangement with the North Koreans that worked to make sure that they don't have the capacity to develop a bomb. And North Korea agreed that there would be no program whatsoever toward the development of a weapon.
Jay: And there wasn't. NK was working toward nuclear power, you know, power plants and such. They weren't working toward a weapon (like they are now) because we worked with them, whether we agreed with everything the did in their country or not... Much like how we treat China like Wonder Bread even though they treat their citizens like yesterday's melba toast... And as was stated earlier, even if they were doing so in secret, at least we had people coming and going from the country to help keep track of things, see what was going on, and maybe get a heads up on what NK was trying and not trying to do with their nuclear supplies...

Bush: And yet we came into office and discovered that they were developing a program, unbeknownst to the folks with whom they signed the agreement, the United States government. And we confronted them with that evidence, and they admitted it was true, and then left the agreement that they had signed with the U.S. government.
Jay: Lie. Or, at least, a half-truth. (Incidentally, isn't it amazing the order in which Bush states what happened? If they were developing NW, then they left the agreement a long time before Bush supposedly supplied "evidence" that they were...) That's why there were inspectors, and that's why NK was put under sanctions at different times during the Clinton administration, along with other incentives and punishments as time went on... (see here for a complete summary of Clinton's policies toward NK during his tenure in office.) Clinton knew what NK was up to, but he felt it was better to have an ongoing talking relationship than to shut them out and then wonder, "Hmm, what are they up to? Wish we knew..."

Bush: I can remember the time when it was said that, "The Bush administration goes it alone too often in the world," which I always thought was a bogus claim to begin with.
Jay" You would, dumbass.

Bush: And now all of a sudden, people are saying, you know, "The Bush administration ought to be going it alone with North Korea."
Jay: No one is saying that, you moron! We're saying, "Since NK will only talk (not go it alone) with us, we should talk (not go it alone!) with them! There's a huge difference between talking to someone alone and invading a country alone!!

Bush: But it didn't work in the past, is my point. The strategy did not work.
Jay: What? Going it alone in war? Or Clinton's strategy? Is he actually admitting a mistake here?

Bush: I learned a lesson from that and decided that the best way to convince Kim Jong Il to change his mind on a nuclear weapons program is to have others send the same message.
Jay: Yeah, really seems to be working... Is that why he keeps testing missiles and has promised to test more nuclear weapons? Is this going to be another "stay the course" curse of Shrubya?

Bush: And so in my phone calls that I recently made right after the test I lamented the fact that he had tested to Hu Jintao and also lamented the fact that Hu Jintao had publicly asked him not to test.
Jay: Oh, you "lamented"? Glad to see you were doing something productive.

Bush: I talked to the South Korean president, and I said, "It ought to be clear to us now that we must continue to work together to make it abundantly clear to the leader in North Korea that there's a better way forward; when he walks away from agreement he's not just walking away from the table with the United States as the only participant. He's walking away from a table that others are sitting at."
Jay: In other words, "We must tell NK once again that all of us come to the party, or no one does." And how has this worked in the past few years? Didn't you just finish telling us that the six-party talks were "walked away from"? (HINT: Yes you did!)

Bush: And my point to you is: In order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand. And you have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you're alone.
Jay: In other words, "Let me state this thought three times in a row to make it seem like I'm making many separate and valid points, and maybe no one will notice that I have a hard time making a complete sentence."

Bush: And so, obviously, I made the decision that the bilateral negotiations wouldn't work. And the reason I made that decision is because they didn't.
Jay: Does this ass listen to anything that comes out of his mouth? He said earlier that the six party talks didn't work! He said earlier that Clinton didn't know that his two party talks had failed (even though they hadn't!) So he makes a unilateral decision about a bilateral talk which he never tried in favor of his six party talks which he already admitted had failed!!! Good god, man! And what good are the talks when China and Russia don't even want to sanction NK? They're NK's freakin' allies!

Bush: And we'll continue to work to come up with a diplomatic solution to North Korea. This is a serious issue.
Jay: So far you haven't done jack shit, and if that's what you consider "working hard," you're doing as "bang up" a job as Brownie did during Katrina...

Bush: But I want to remind our fellow citizens that the North Korea issue was serious for years. And I'll also remind our citizens that we want to make sure that we solve this problem diplomatically. We've got to give every effort to do so.
Jay: Unless "every effort" includes bilateral talks. Or the military action we said we wouldn't take (because we can't). Or trying something Clinton might have done. Or something the UN suggests. Hmm, what's left?

Bush: But in my discussions with our partners, I reassured them that the security agreements we have with them will be enforced, if need be. And that's in particular to South Korea and Japan.
Jay: Ahh, I see. I think. So you're saying SK and Japan are going to attack NK, right? I hope he "lamented" over this with them before he committed their troops to this...

Face it, Shrubya. You've put us in a position where not only can we not protect our interests from an actual threat, you don't even have a clue as to how to get us out of this mess. (Of course, you were lacking clues throughout your presidency...)

Can anyone tell me why they still want to vote for this man?


Anonymous said...

no one cares

Jason Hughes said...

Is that what you say when you care enough to send the very best?

You cared enough to ay you didn't, and I think that says enough, don't you?