Arkansas Blog

BUSH???
Hell. Everybody knows that li'l Kim's nuclear bomb is the fault of Bill Clinton! Just like 9/11, Katrina, the Iraq War, and Janet Jackson's boob fiasco.
Well, anybody who doesn't realize it will after all the talk radio shows air today.
Seriously though, maybe the mushroom cloud has a silver lining.... maybe THAT will make Americans wake up and realize that we have to get somebody in office with enough sense to at least talk to foreign leaders.
The new cold war begins. Or, at least, we can HOPE it's cold.

Kim thumbed his nose at Georgie! We've go ourselves in a quagmire in Iraq. Not enough troops to come near finishing that job...ill equiped and like any good dictator, Kim sees the weakness and wallaH - nuklar test.

Bush stands on his mountian and declares North Korea part of the "Axis of evil" - what did we honestly expect?

Now, the international community needs to stand up, stop ALL trade - isolate North Korea - but it's got to be a unified effort by the international community - Bush's cowboy diplomacy ain't working. I imagine that Japan is non to happy and the re-arming of that country is a forgone conclusion now. Who'd blame them?

Maybe North Korea did this because "they hate us for our freedoms"...Foley off the front page for today - let's not forget, North Korea is the failure of Bush's diplomatic policies (not a snark).

DUCK AND COVER - POLITICIANS' CREED

It's another fine mess W's gotten himself into. But, as he rails against the "nukularzation" of the Korean Peninsula, he gets to exploit the fear factor in the American electorate. This shoves Iraq further to the side, along with Foleygate and the general White House Mean and Stupidgate. But will it help him and his party? They'll try to blame Clinton, whose N. Korea policy actually was kinda working.

The specter of terrorist nuclear bombs has just grown much more feasible, chiefly as a result of this administration's bullying and subsequent lack of action to curb Kim Jong Il's mad gamble. Feel safer now, America?

Meanwhile, devoid of any diplomatic ability of their own, the Dubyans are suddenly putting the real onus on the U.N. Security Council, even as the United Nations ponders naming a SOUTH Korean as secretary general.

Fallout? Iran will get what it wants as Muslim Nation rejoices. Japan will ramp up its military might (and don't they have a few reactors capable of producing some weapons-grade plutonium?). China will throw its weight around (probably behind the scenes, snickering uncontrollably at W. despite the grave danger now looming). The rank and file of America will be buffetted financially and psychologically.

Wipe the cobwebs out of the old bomb shelter, stock it up and let the spin begin.

It was the State of the Union speech 2002 when dim-wit warned us about the Axis of Evil -- Iraq, Iran & North Korea. It seems a good morning to take stock of that warning.

Iraq is now engaged in a civil war which has killed or maimed nearly 20,000 US troops and too many to count Iraqis. It's not in its "last throes" as the incompentent geniuses say in the Bush Administration. It is getting worse by the day. So I guess we fixed that evil empire.

Then Iran. On its way to nuclear weapons, funded the most successful skirmish against the Isrealis, and its minions are in the new Palestinian government. Democracy at work according to Bush. Gosh, and we are so bogged down in Iraq we couldn't throw the Army Band against them.

And finally, North Korea. Our intrasignence about talking to them [except in a bevy of other quail] has certainly yielded stella results. Explosive results if you will! They too are well on thier way to Democracy. Just ask Team Bush.

When we turn our government over to a man of little or no sophistication, untravelled, unthinking, faith as phony political policy, what can we expect. Exactly what we got - shit in a handbasket. If it wasn't so pathetic and dangerous it would be laughable. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who can vote to keep this man in unchecked power next month, needs a lobotomy.

It was the State of the Union speech 2002 when dim-wit warned us about the Axis of Evil -- Iraq, Iran & North Korea. It seems a good morning to take stock of that warning.

Iraq is now engaged in a civil war which has killed or maimed nearly 20,000 US troops and too many to count Iraqis. It's not in its "last throes" as the incompentent geniuses say in the Bush Administration. It is getting worse by the day. So I guess we fixed that evil empire.

Then Iran. On its way to nuclear weapons, funded the most successful skirmish against the Isrealis, and its minions are in the new Palestinian government. Democracy at work according to Bush. Gosh, and we are so bogged down in Iraq we couldn't throw the Army Band against them.

And finally, North Korea. Our intrasignence about talking to them [except in a bevy of other quail] has certainly yielded stella results. Explosive results if you will! They too are well on thier way to Democracy. Just ask Team Bush.

When we turn our government over to a man of little or no sophistication, untravelled, unthinking, faith as phony political policy, what can we expect. Exactly what we got - shit in a handbasket. If it wasn't so pathetic and dangerous it would be laughable. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who can vote to keep this man in unchecked power next month, needs a lobotomy or already has one.

Iran has the same motivation as North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon. As a member of Bush's Axis of Evil, they realize their choice is to join the nuclear club or risk invasion by the American cowboy.

As mentioned, our bullyboy tactics only make America less safe, not more so. NOBODY likes a bully!

This is exactly what the GOP wants and needs right now. The more they poke that spider with a stick, the more they distract from PageFuckerGate.

Bad for the country and the world; great for the GOP. Nancy Pelosi's picture will be shown a million times and the question will be asked, "Do you want this woman to be the Speaker of the House in such times?"

I'm still pretty pissed we couldn't whip the North Koreans back in the early 50s. It was the first time we didn't win a war and it stung like hell. For those of you too young to know, the big danger was that we were going to piss off China and start a war with them. Same deal with Vietnam only add Russia to the mix.

I think we need to slow down a little and think this over. First of all this IS Bush's fault. Hitting me doesn't upset me near as much as ignoring me. And Bush made it plain to Lil' Kim that he was such a nothing that he didn't register on our radar. Well.....Lil' Kim registered yesterday....big time. Thanks George.

But, we have to quit making everything all about US. As the North Korean missile tests of a few months ago prove, NK couldn't hit Tulsa for 10 billion dollars. NK is the problem of China and Japan, not ours. Let them handle it with our support. I'll let Spirit handle Pocahontas, I'll let Max, hugh and rosso handle LR and I'll do my part to watch out for FS.

And.......I'm not a big fan of I CAN and YOU CAN'T. The US is the only country on earth that has used nuclear weapons to kill people. 2 bombs ended World War II and I'm glad Truman dropped them. Historians say the bombs wound up saving 1 million US soldiers and 3 million Japanese, which would have died if we had invaded Japan to fight hand to hand.

But given that history we have no right to tell other countries we can have nukes and they can't. NK is surrounded by enemies, why shouldn't they want nukes? And now they've shown they won't be pushed around. That's what little guys do when you piss them off long enough.

Oh Lord...let there be some kind of new wisdom fall from the skies over DC. Dumbass Bush can turn this upsetting event into the start of WWIII. This is not the time to show our teeth....all our teeth are in Iraq and we all know we've bitten off more than we can chew there.

So may God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha and Wink Martindale all converge on our White House and prevent the gang that couldn't shoot straight from turning this bad thing into the worst thing we can imagine. Let Bush go ride his bike for the rest of the week.....he can only make things worse. Good luck to us all.

congrats,

ark times is in step with Iran in calling this the fault of Bush

I think Janus nailed our good President Bluster pretty well. It just goes to prove that its hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

If Iran agrees with the Arkansas Times, it means that Iran is also right.

LET'S GET REAL - LET'S GET LOGICAL!

North Korea claimed to be close to having a NUKE and was.

Iraq claimed to not have a program and didn't.

Who did W attack?

North Korea is just a sideshow that draws attention from the real plot.

Iran should be smiling quietly right at this moment.

Isn't this what Iran wanted? Iran has watched as the US fritters away its resources -- human, economic, tactical, natural, and political. It hasn't cost Iran a dime to be poised for taking over the Middle East.

Now Iran can continue its watch, unnoticed and off-the-radar, for awhile as China begins spending some of its enormous wealth and influence while attempting to deal with neighbor North Korea. And with Japan and South Korea scared to death, China can begin calling the shots in that region.

Before long, Iran will be able to sweet talk the beleaguered Iraqis into a union of Shiites without firing a shot. That's when Pakistan, Afghanistan and a few former Soviet republics will begin to feel the lure toward rekindling the embers of the slumbering Persian Empire.

Don't take it lightly, but those people invented the game of chess -- it's not just a game -- with its long-term strategies of warfare. The most powerful general in history, Tamerlane, left a legacy that Bush and Company have never understood. All those onion-shaped domes that we think of in Russia, India, Samarkand, Iran, ... Turkey, and beyond ... mark the core of the world's largest empire that was controlled by Tamerlane and his Tatars from Europe into China.

And how will Russia and Saudi Arabia respond to some future Iranian threat? That will depend on Israel's response.

The chest-beating monkeys of both parties in Washington who voted for the invasion of Iraq must have known nothing about the kind of powder keg they were messing with.

Will anything remain of Bush's policies except the hatred we have built throughout the region?

DBI, If you'll remember we were fighting the Chinese in the Korean War. If they hadn't entered the war we would have finished off the North Koreans

Stupid. Fucking. Shit.

"I'll let Spirit handle Pocahontas...
Posted by: Deathbyinches"

Spirit can't even handle his own household.

Korea was going to get the bomb sooner or later. W just made it sooner. A regime like that was going to get the bomb. Ditto Iran. We've seen it for thirty years. ONce they get the program underway, they will eventually complete it.

Our problem is Iraq. There is no place to use the bomb in a sane and ordered world with strong alliances and a moral dipolmacy and foriegn policy.

The Repubs have created a monster that may turn on them.

All for a buck.

All of you Dems who think you can beat these guys at their own game, who want to out spin and the spinners to promote an agenda beyond the facts and the main stream are just allowing the system to spin on out of control.

Iraq claimed to not have a program and didn't.- Posted by: Citizen1
********
That would be a good point . . . except Saddam would not let the UN inspectors confirm this. So, I guess you trust Saddam to tell you the truth, huh?

You have marvelous 20/20 hindsight.

"except Saddam would not let
the UN inspectors confirm
this...
Posted by: Don Keyhotay"

Typical of Saddam's flawed judgment. At his peak of cooperation he still put some of his palaces and mosques off limits, and God knows what he might have had under those places. At the time we had no way of knowing.

It's a huge shame he didn't have the good sense to give up all his sovereignty and give the inspectors full unencumbered access.

Even if we had found no weapons, I suspect Bush would have come up with reasons to attack anyway, but I wish we'd had the opportunity to find out.

Oh Don....what were all those inspectors doing in Iraq when they had to be called out before Bush started dropping bombs? We're they looking for a new safe house for Cheney? Where they looking for Pages to boink? What were those inspectors doing? And I guess we should ignore everything David Kay had to say about Bush jumping the gun. The inspectors didn't find any WMD, because there wasn't any. That's an excellent reason to not find something, isn't it?

Sadam ignored us the way Bush ignored North Korea.....looks like maybe the wrong way to handle anything in life. Don't you think?

Bush wouldn't let the U.N inspectors confirm their findings not Saddam. Hans Blick has been raising hell about this since this catastrophe began.

DON KEY, 2:05 pm.

Check your FACTS.

The inspectors were back in Iraq and were not being denied access ANYWHERE before W's war.

Check your FACTS.

W pulled the inspectors out so he could attack.

I don't have hind-site I have facts.

Like the old Persian proverb, "Trust in Allah but tie your camel".

Whoops correction.

Mistakes happen when you type with your fists.

UN inspectors were in Iraq from November 27th 2002 through February 20, 2003 till they were pulled out by Kofi Annon (not W) due to the inevitable attack by the US.

Saddam was allowing full access at any site the inspectors arrived at even unanounced.

Saddam was allowing U2 flights unhampered and even allowed two pallaces which the US had provided the coordinates of searched without delay. Many thought those were efforts to provoke an incident with Saddam.

Mistakes happen when you type with your fists.- Posted by: Citizen1
********
True. And you don't need to SHOUT either.

Heck, I remember the nightly news showing the little white UN jeeps getting blocked, etc. And there are plenty of reports of denied access. www.iraqwatch.org quotes Hans Blick in 2002 saying that Iraq was in breach of 23 of 27 UN obligations and that they were continuing to deny access to inspectors. Read the subsequent Daily Inspection Activities Reports and you see that interviews of many key individuals could not be conducted as late as March, 2003. So we probably got to talk to the ones they wanted us to talk to and didn't get to talk to the ones we needed.

As for not finding any WMD - lets see, how many years did he have to give them to a friendly country and remove the evidence?

There is factual evidence that Saddam used chemical and biological weapons in the past (on his own people!) so, if you consider those nerve and chemical agents weapons of mass destruction, there is clear proof that he had WMDs - but no proof has been found that he still had them in his possession when he headed for his hole.

As for Bush pulling out the inspectors - seems like a pretty good idea unless they wanted to stay and inspect each others' remains. . .

So let me get this straight...it's OK for us, Russia, India to have a bomb, but not North Korea. Pray, tell why not? Because we don't like them? OK, they don't like us, so maybe WE should give up our nuclear weapons so they won't want one so badly.

No one "needs" a nuclear weapon. Period.

So let me get this straight...it's OK for us . . . to have a bomb, but not North Korea. Pray, tell why not? - Posted by: EY
********
Same reason you don't give a gun to a five year old child. You let him have it when he's a responsible adult and hopefully nothing bad happens.

Plus, if we have the biggest stick, its easier for us to keep them in their place if they try to get out of line.

Don Key

#1 2002? I am talking about the rush to war in 2003!

The inspectors were UN-IMPEDED from Nov 27th 2002 through Feb 20 2003.

#2 If Saddam shipped WMD off, they were gone. Instead of RUSH TO WAR just quadruple the inspectors. Saddam had stopped resisting. As Hans Blick was eporting, inspecters were not restrained. I figure we would not be in the 1,000's dead and 10,000's maimed if we sent 1000's of inspectors.

#3 Saddam had used WMD a decade before but there was no evidence of Saddam having them AT THE TIME WE RUSHED TO WAR.

I bet the 20,000 maimed wish we had tried searching longer. I bet the families of the 2,700 dead wish we had searched longer.

My bitch when Bush launched "Shock and Awe" was there were still other options. Turns out I was correct.

Condi Rice and her mushroom cloud was disproved before the invasion but the beating of the war gong drowned out that fact.

Al Quida links were disproved before the invasion but Bush innuendo drowned out that fact.

Now there is a very large Al, Quida factor because our poorly planned attack gave them an excellent theater to humiliate the US.

Attacking Iraq was the best gift Al Quida could have hoped for, courtesy of Bush.

Turns out I was correct. - Posted by: Citizen1
********
Maybe you should run for political office.

I always like to go back and look at what Democrats said regarding the Iraq war;

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." President Clinton National Address from the Oval Office December 16, 1998

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) " November 2, 2003

"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq. Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam." Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut) In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled:"Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq" October 7, 2002

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State

Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor

Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons." James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman In a PBS documentaryt itled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution" July 11, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

Also a member of the House Intelligence Committee Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Robert C. Byrd Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia) Addressing the US Senate October 3, 2002

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes." Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector Addressing the UN Security Council January 27, 2003

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 105th Congress, 2nd Session September 29, 1998

CNN October 10, 2002
House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction

CNN October 11, 2002
Senate approves Iraq war resolution In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

You know, just so Bush doesnt get all the Blame for the Unjust war . Right ?!

nevermind the 13 un resolutions for going to war in the first place, weapons of mass destructions were just one reason

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

But dont lets facts get in the way of your weak attempts to act like the Iraq war was all Bushes doing.

Rumsfeld, according to Keith Olbermann tonight, was on the board of the company that sold N. Korea some of their required equipment for nuclear testing. Reckon there were $ signs in the Chimp's eyes when he set his well thought out policy of not talking to the N. Koreans?

a little history lesson on how we got here with korea

1993: North Korea shocks the world by saying it will quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and then layered suspends its withdrawal.

. 1994: North Korea and the United States sign an agreement in Geneva, North Korea pledging to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for help building two power producing nuclear reactors.

That was the sucker deal made with Madeleine Albright -- Jimmy Carter did some advance work -- and with the Clinton administration. So it was 1994, Clinton's second year in office that North Korea ran the sucker deal to perfection against the United States.

September 17th, 1999: Five years later: President Clinton agrees to a first major easing of economic sanctions against North Korea since the Korean War's end in 1953.

. July of 2000: North Korea threatens to restart its nuclear program if Washington does not compensate it for the loss of electricity due to delays in building nuclear power plants.
(Laughing) The reason they're having delays in building nuclear power plants is because they took what we gave them and they're using it to develop weapons!

. July of 2001: The US State Department reports that North Korea is developing a long range missile.

. December 2001: President Bush warns Iraq and North Korea they will be held accountable if they develop weapons of mass destruction.

. January 29, 2001: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil."

. October 4, 2002: North Korea tells visiting US delegation it has a second covert nuclear weapons program.

CJ,

"...President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of diplomatic normalization.

President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise, President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to the bomb) as the final straw.

Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad, Bush=Not whatever Clinton did..."

You and the rest of the EEC may convince the CCRRR voters, but the truth is Bush was/is the DPRK's nuclear enabler and everyone, even KBR, who will get a no-bid contract for nuclear missile and fallout shelters for the West Coast will pay the price for the ineptitude and arrogance of the first U.S. terror-time president.

North Korea isn't a 5 year old child. It's a sovereign nation. One of the excuses for pursuing nukes that they've used for a while is that they want to be able to defend themselves if we should attack with our big bad nukes. While I'm quite sure that's 99% disinformation, it has a catchy logic to it.
But still, no one *needs* nuclear (or nuculur) weapons. Read Dr. Seuss's The Butter Battle Book for a much better perspective.

North Korea isn't a 5 year old child. It's a sovereign nation. - Posted by: EY
********
Thank you for correcting me. North Korea is a sovereign nation led by a man who acts like a 5 year old child.

And our leader acts how old? Lil Kim thinks he's a big dog too. Ignoring him was a big mistake, in fact the Bush administration's history of only negotiating with people they like is as dumb as dirt.

Anyone knows working out a deal with your buddies is not as important as smoking the peace pipe with your enemies. Bush is either arrogant, stupid, chicken or D., all of the above.

Besides North Korea is China's bitch and China doesn't need US running over in their yard screaming Citizen's arrest, Citizen's arrest!

Thank you for correcting me. North Korea is a sovereign nation led by a man who acts like a 5 year old child.

Posted by: Don Keyhotay

There you go again, acting just like the petulent child in the White House. When you have the sophistication of treating countries like children and you pretent you are the big poppa, you screw up the household. Mr. Kim has out thought and out flanked the Idiot-in-Chief at every move. Does that let you know why Bush won't let us negotiate directly with North Korea? We'd lose our pants. Oops, we already have. Another foreign policy triumph by the incompetent Republicans.