Bush is in a real fix with N. Korea. He is liable to do something stupid

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HJ12Aa01.html

Neo-cons come out guns blazing

<snip>"This crisis is not just about North Korea, but about Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba as well," said Rubin. "Bush now has two choices: to respond forcefully and show that defiance has consequence, or affirm that defiance pays and that international will is illusionary."

Bush "must now choose whether his legacy will be one of inaction or leadership, Chamberlain or Churchill", Rubin said in a reference to the pre-World War II debate between the "appeasement" of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and the war policy of his successor, Winston Churchill.

The neo-conservatives, whose influence on the Bush administration has generally been on the wane since late 2003 when it became clear that the Iraq war they had done so much to champion was going badly, nonetheless retain some clout, particularly through the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld.

They are opposed by the "realists" who are concentrated in the State Department and also include former secretary of state Colin Powell; his chief deputy, Richard Armacost; and a number of top national-security officials in the administration of former president George H W Bush, such as former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former secretary of state James Baker, who just last weekend publicly called for Washington to engage its "enemies" directly, including North Korea, Syria and Iran.

[MrModerate]

1. Bush has broken all of his diplomatic toys . . .

And has nothing to play with in this game.

Unfortunately, the people of the world will ultimately pay the price for his wastage of opportunity. It's the Bush Way.

[bryant69]

2. Oh come on what are the odds that President Bush is going to do something

stupid? I mean think about - the law of averages says eventually he'll have to do something non - stupid. Unless he's some kind of genius of stupidity.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[whistle]

3. We will find out at 11:00am this morning

[elehhhhna]

12. what? is he speechifying at 11?

[elehhhhna]

13. why yes he is!

[madokie]

4. the boy king has been doing something stupid his whole life

and its always hurt other people but not to the degree his direction will take us the next two plus years.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. He's stuck on stupid!

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. "Liable to do something stupid" There's an understatement.

Does the sun rise in the east?

[sam sarrha]

8. is a frogs butt water tight? he is SPRING LOADED in the F*ck UP Position

[hippiechick]

6. It amazes me that nobody ever bothers to point out ...

... well, maybe not, considering news sources, but nobody ever points out the hypocrisy of the US - having the hugest and ongoing nuclear arsenal on the planet - has the balls to tell any other country that they cannot have nukes because they're seen as a destabilizing force and a threat to peace.

It just burns my ass every time I hear someone from our government condemning another country for doing what we ourselves have been doing with abandon for what, 50 years ??

And oh yeah, as KO said last night - instead of blaming President Clinton for letting it happen - when North Korea bought their reactors in the 90's, how 'bout asking a few questions of Herr Rumsfeld who was on the board of the company that SOLD THEM TO NORTH KOREA ?!?!?!?!

This shit just pisses me off. :mad: :mad:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

7. That was my thought also, this could turn into a real disaster

where a lot of people die. However, I have been pretty convinced that ultimately that would be the outcome of this administration policies anyway, it was always just been a matter of when.

[sam sarrha]

10. things actually looked good till Bolten called Kim a "Stupid Midget'

in PUBLIC..!!!!!!!

Clinton had resolved things, they had burried their control rods and had accepted our solutions to porblems..

[maine_raptor]

9. My Prediction?

He'll cave and told talks with the NK.

Why? Because he has no real other options.

He can't go military on them; he doesn't have the resources and the NK response would leave Seoul looking like the dark side of the Moon within the first 10 minutes just from Kim's artillery alone/

And that ain't going make his Wall Street buddies too happy.

All this talk about sanctions and a blockade?

Well, look at how well sanctions worked for 45 years with Cuba. A blockade MIGHT stop some of NK's only export, military technology, but unless you can completely seal the northern border of North Korea something will slip thru. (For the reader's info: the PU-238 core of a Nagasaki sized bomb is about the size of a grapefruit.)

So I think he'll break down and authorize face to face talks with Kim.

We will shortly be seeing pics of Condi and Kim in the same room.

Question is; Kim being a "ladies" man and all, will Condi "give one up" in order to get Kim to drop the nukes?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[havocmom]

14. And if he goes military, what does China do?

Call in the debt? They own our ass.

[pkz]

15. he'll cave

he has too. Definitely can't go military and honestly, can't even threaten it, the world knows the best we got is stuck Iraq. There's reports that the troops there are dangerously low on ammo.

will Condi "give one up" in order to get Kim to drop the nukes?
LOL

[sam sarrha]

17. the military will revolt and stop any attack..

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. With Bush, NK doesn't change the situation very much.

He has a hard-on to bomb Iran. He had it on Monday so he'll have it on Wednesday. What happened Tuesday doesn't matter.