When the Bush administration pulled out of the Agreed Framework with North Korea in 2002, the main complaint was that the DPRK had a clandestine program to enrich uranium on top of its well-known and nearly bomb-ready plutonium work. As an indisputable result of our pullout North Korea unfroze its plutonium activities and proceeded by many accounts to assemble several functional or semi-functional nuclear weapons.
Think of the disgrace if it turned out that our concerns about Uranium processing, concerns which allowed an insane dictatorship willing to deal with any buyer to acquire nuclear weapons, turned out to be almost totally unfounded. Just imagine.
The Bush administration is backing away from its long-held assertions that North Korea has an active clandestine program to enrich uranium, leading some experts to believe that the original U.S. intelligence that started the crisis over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions may have been flawed.
By itself this level of screwup would relegate any ordinary administration to near the bottom of any historical list. With these guys, eh. Taking into account their refusal to take terrorism seriously before 9/11 and not for very long after, the decision to disregard Afghanistan and sink our fortunes in Iraq, the total loss of American credibility over detainee treatment and so much more, handing nukes to Norks amounts to just another day’s news.
Josh Marshall comments:
So now let’s review that quote from the senior administration official: “The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently.”
Frankly, it’s not much of a question.
Because of a weapons program that may not even have existed (and no one ever thought was far advanced) the White House the White House got the North Koreans to restart their plutonium program and then sat by while they produced a half dozen or a dozen real nuclear weapons — not the Doug Feith/John Bolton kind, but the real thing.
The one thing we wanted to avoid was goading North Korea into unlocking their plutonium. But we did. Why? Because we suspected them of processing uranium.
You might ask: why would North Korea admit to having a uranium program if it didn’t actually have one? In this case, there’s an obvious answer. Namely: North Korea has a long history of trying to get our attention. In any previous administration, this would have gotten it. (Bear in mind that the Clinton administration nearly went to war with North Korea for things that the G. W. Bush administration has barely reacted to at all.) Claiming that they had a uranium enrichment program when they didn’t would be completely in character. (So would trying to develop one. I’m not trying to say that this is evidence that they did not have such a program; just that if they didn’t have one, it would not be out of character for them to pretend that they did.)
The Economist’s house blog:
By the way, this story is two years old.
Bush scrapped the agreement based on the idea that Clinton got tricked because the North Koreans were pursuing a parallel uranium program.
Indeed I have lost count how many rightwingers have indicted Clinton for failing to do anything about North Korea’s massive, obvious uranium enrichment activities. I will go out on a limb and predict that we can count the apologies on one finger.
Punchy
Quite certainly the middle one.
Zifnab
Ah, here it is. Wingnuttery at its finest.
It’s all Clinton’s fault!!!!1!
Curtesy of David Zucker.
ThymeZone
The GOP sold us DOMA. That was the most important thing in the last national election, after “being president is hard.”
So, why would we want to come back now and snark these guys for fucking up the North Korea situation? They never promised us a North Korea policy. They promised us DOMA.
I don’t see that the fuss is about.
Jake
But…but…you don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, do ya?
Oh wait.
Never Mind.
And flowers and candy. And ponies. And we’ve yet to see any of that, either.
Punchy
Speaking of enemies and allies….Damn, I’m beginning to think we simply dont want any allies. For anything. Anytime.
My latest cynical guess is that they’re doing this to look consistent for all the detainees (something the SC would demand), but he’s already got his “innocent” ticket stamped and one-way flight back to Australia booked.
Darrell
N. Korea admitted to having an enriched uranium program and has launched and exploded a nuclear bomb. With the explosion of that nuclear bomb, they have demonstrated, at a minimum, that they have weapons grade plutonium.
What is your point Tim?
Lee
Going to show my ignorance here….
What is the difference and why are we concerned with uranium versus plutonium?
(please be gentle)
thanks,
demimondian
Um, Darrell? If you’d bothered to actually read the articles, you’d have discovered that it appears that North Korea *lied* about whether they had an enrichment program. You’re not the only serial liar in the world, you know — in fact, Darrell, you’re not even particularly special in that class. There are lots of other tyrants and would-be tyrants just like you.
Faux News
(SIGH)
Darrell is the 6th post. Damn. I was gonna comment that he/she/it would chime in at any moment and proclaim “VICTORY on the War Against North Korea and its N-Bomb”.
Wonder how long it will take him/her/it to hijack the thread. Frankly, I’m tired of the Iraq Hijack Darrell threads. Let’s pick new topics for him/her/it to use for thread hijacks. My thought is a new fangled Darrell. Something out of the Mike Myers Kawfee Chat. Darrell how about it?
“Rhode Island is neither a Road nor an Island”. Discuss.
Tim F.
Once in a while do me a favor and read the entire post. Note the quote from Hilzoy. Now go read Hilzoy’s post. Yes, the DPRK lied about their progress with Uranium in order to get our attention. After Saddam’s WMD subterfuge it should hardly come as a surprise to be mislead my a slimy dictator.
Moving on, the first half of your sentence, regarding uranium, has nothing to do with the second half of the sentence, which concerns a plutonium bomb. I certainly hope you were aware that the presence of plutonium bombs was precisely the point of my post. But if you were, that sentence only makes any sense if you’re trying to back me up. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind if that’s what you meant, but for some reason I doubt it.
Zifnab
Rhodes scholar:
holder of any of the scholarships founded at Oxford in 1902 by British financier and imperialist Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), for whom the former African nation of Rhodesia also was named.
Jake
And the five thousand posts about Tim F.’s dishonesty will begin in 5…4…3…
Cry havoc! Let slip the Jackelopes of War!
Tim F.
Leaving fusion bombs for the advanced class, there are two basic ways to make a fission bomb. You can mine uranium from the earth and carefully separate the rare heavy isotopes (Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU) from the light isotopes, or you can process fuel in a nuclear reactor until you have a significant amount of plutonium. Either will go boom, but it’s a real pain to do both simultaneously so people on a budget usually choose to go either one way or the other.
The general rule (I believe) is that plutonium is easier to obtain but harder to make into a bomb while enriching uranium is a pain in the ass but once you have HEU making the bomb is cake. As I understand it that helps explain why terrorists are always looking for highly enriched uranium (HEU). That way they can skip the hard part.
RSA
I think Matt Yglesias gives the most concise explanation.
RSA
Oops, I missed Tim F.’s explanation, which is probably more to the point.
Darrell
Was the suckers agreement Clinton made with the Norks limited to a specific type of uranium enrichment? Or did it cover all weapons grade nuclear development? I believe plutonium development was clearly specified in the agreed framework. Because you’re rewriting history to suggest that conservative criticism of Clinton’s agreement was limited to HEU and not other weapons grade development.
Tim is trying to dishonestly assert that there is some sort of substantive difference between HEU development on the part of the Norks and other weapons grade nuclear development. It’s bullshit, but that’s the leftwing talking point of the day, and Tim is the faithful parrot.
I see Kevin Drum embracing his inner moonbat by blaming US “goading” for N. Korea nuclear development. Incredible how so many claim that Drum is a “moderate”. I guess the IAEA “goaded” the Norks too, as they were expelled from the country.
Tulkinghorn
Rhodes is an island.
However, “Providence Plantations” is neither providential, nor a plantain.
Andrew
But Algore heats his pool all winter!!!!!!
The Other Andrew
I think I’ve figured out Darrell’s debate strategy. I hereby dub it the Darrell Two-Step:
1. Challenge some factual statement or interpretation.
2. After being proven wrong, act like it never happened and challenge another factual statement or interpretation.
Ted
The point was NK already had nuclear reactors with which to make plutonium, so it was too late in the Clinton years to do anything about that. What NK lacked was the technological ability to make it into a bomb. Anyone with a machine shop and Google can make HEU into a bomb, so it was imperative to prevent them from getting or making any of that.
NK’s ability to turn their already possessed plutonium into a bomb was recently demonstrated to be pathetic at best. Under the Agreed Framework, NK was complying with the specification that they not develop HEU, as confirmed by outside inspectors. We pulled out of, they started working on it.
AkaDad
Darrell,
Who has done a better job regarding N. Korea, Clinton or Bush?
John S.
Hey Darrell, who the fuck do you think you are talking to?
There isn’t s single commenter (or moderator) on this blog that doesn’t know how full of shit you are and how consistently wrong and disingenuous you are on every topic.
So really, who are you appealing to? Why do you even bother posting? Nobody fucking cares what you have to say.
Darrell
So if plutonium is so difficult to make into a bomb, and the Norks were playing nice with plutonium weapons development until bellicose warmonger Bush “forced” them to start development, then how could they go from zero to exploding a nuclear bomb in just over 3 years?
Obvious answer which will escape the crowd here: Because Norks never stopped their nuclear weapons development. They had no intention of keeping their agreement made with Clinton.
Darrell
First, it is a lie to assert that the agreed framework focused all, or even mostly on HEU. Weapons grade plutonium was specifically mentioned in that agreement.
Second, the IAEA was kicked out, and no such thing has been “confirmed”
demimondian
Obvious answer — they didn’t. They already had the infrastructure in place, and Clinton’s deal stopped their development. Once D-boy and his friends gave them the excuse, they broke the seals and went back to work.
Darrell
Ah yes, the cult-like belief on the left that N. Koreans can be trusted. Just like the claims of the good ‘ole kite flying days under Saddam.
Ted
Yeah, and it was understood that they already had it. If you have a nuclear reactor, you pretty much already have your plutonium weapon fuel, with a little work. The agreement allowed for inspections to confirm the material was not being removed from the reactors and converted into a weapon. No inspectors because we pulled out of the agreement, and they marched in and grabbed it from he reactors.
Your deficiency of knowledge of the particulars of nuclear weapons is becoming apparent. The agreement was primarily about two things: inspections to confirm the plutonium stayed in their reactors, and inspections to confirm they didn’t start refining uranium.
Ted
You don’t even need inspectors to determine if a country is refining uranium. The operation is so massive and costly it’s plainly obvious, even when it’s being done underground.
Face it Darrell. You don’t understand this subject as well as you do others.
Lee
Thanks for the education on uranium versus plutonium.
Does it make you wonder if anyone sat down with Bush The Lesser and explain that to him? If they did explain it…did he listen?
Darrell
That’s the crux of your argument? And you seriously stand by that, right? And if detected, how to know whether it’s being used for the production of low enriched uranium for civil fuel purposes or HEU for nuclear weapons?
On a related note, is it “plainly obvious” that Iran is enriching uranium?
Tim F.
You honestly don’t understand a word you’re saying, do you? Your statements betray a total ignorance of the technical distinction between uranium and plutonium bomb production. You’re trying to bluff out of this fog of incomprehension with your usual personal attacks and general belligerence. You hope that people will latch onto your rude behavior and miss the giant sucking vaccum in your head.
I don’t have to “assert” a difference between the two major types of bomb production. Every technical resource on Earth will explain it to you. Try Wikipedia. Go read any informed source you want. Producing a plutonium bomb and producing a HEU bomb are two entirely different animals.
The Agreed Framework covered a plutonium bomb. It said nothing whatsoever about uranium enrichment because it was known that DPRK was not enriching uranium. They had invested zero infrastructure towards HEU and they probably lacked the technical capacity to do it if they wanted to. DPRK did, however, have a nuclear reactor producing significant amounts of plutonium already. Yongbyon.
You seem to misunderstand the Agreed Framework as preventing any work on a plutonium bomb. Not so. Most of the hard work was already done by the time the agreement was finalized. The Framework stalled bomb production only a short time before DPRK would have been ready to assemble a weapon. So when Bush annulled the agreement all K-J Il had to do was unseal the plutonium and pack it into a bomb. Several bombs.
Look, I understand that Derangement Syndrome will stop you from ever acknowledging fault over Clinton. Don’t worry, I didn’t expect it. But try to at least understand the technical details before pissing on the character of me and everybody else.
demimondian
Yes. The question is not whether they’re enriching U235, but to what extent they’re enriching it, and what their output rate will be.
Tim F.
It really feels like I’m talking to a trained hamster.
Think hard about what was my point about DPRK and uranium. Try to recall. Was I saying that DPRK told the truth? Was anybody? No. Relax, I don’t expect you to correct yourself.
The entire point of the Agreed Framework was that we wouldn’t have to take the DPRK’s word for anything. Verification procedures worked just fine until Bush annulled the agreement, at which point DPRK kicked out the monitors and shut down the surveillance equipment. Then it didn’t work so well.
In fact the only person on this thread who suggested “trusting” the North Koreans’ word was you. Take a bow, bro.
Tim F.
Like demi said, yep. Are you suggesting that we should pull out of our Agreed Framework with Iran? I hear that works.
Tsulagi
Hopefully, you’re not going to say it took this post to get up to 30 comments before you realized that. I took a look earlier and it was funny. You could see D-boy/Pat was lost up in the clouds without a clue as to which planet they were circling.
Richard 23
First “Japs” and now “Norks.” You’re a real peach, Darrell. A rotting, festering plum of a peach.
jh
For Darrell.
Bush Administration claims “Dog Ate My Homework” on N. Korean Nuke agreement. [empahsis added]
A Translation error?
Some questions about the current administration for our erstwhile Bushcophants:
– Does the buck actually stop anywhere with these guys, or does it have freqent flyer miles on Southwest?
– Are they ever going to be right about anything?
– Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that if we lived under a parliamentary style government that Bush would have recieved a vote of no confidence by now?
demimondian
And, Darrell, as to why we thought the DPRK was actually enriching Uranium without any evidence…well, they said they were, and BushCo found that claim to fit their world view, so they appear to have discarded any voices saying “Um, yeah. Like, where’s the infrastructure, dude?”
carpeicthus
Tim, I take you’ve never heard of the “shotgun” school of debating. Basically, you fling shit far and wide — stuff that doesn’t make sense, sentences that are logically incompatible with your next sentence, anything — because if you’re up against an opponent who argues rationally and for some reason takes you seriously (often when bound to, such as in formal debates) it screws with their heads. I’ve known people who spent entire debating careers getting by on this. Add bitter hatred, and you have Darrell’s entire method. He only drags down threads because people feel for some reason there’s value in responding to him. The only value is to try and make a post on something that’s irrefutable — say, “Stabbing toddlers in the eyes with scissors is wrong” — and watch a master muddy the waters. Late-term abortion! Evolution could not form the human eye! Scissors are the tools of godless liberals! Clinton did it!
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Why does he get away with this?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Not if those toddlers are Middle Eastern terrorists.
CaseyL
Darrell’s about the only really frothing example of Santorum left on this blog. He provides, um, balance….?
Maybe Darrell’s presence keeps BJ on PJM’s blogroll.
les
Why does anyone think D looks any more ignorant in this thread than in any other he poops on?
Krista
Um…Richard? Tim himself used the term “Norks”. I don’t think it’s considered an epithet, but more of a slang term, like “Yanks” for you guys, or “Canucks” for we Canadians.
ThymeZone
Aside from the lack of profanity, this is probably the most accurate and succinct slam against Darrell we’ve seen on these pages so far. Well done!
ThymeZone
And again with the great line. Spit my soup, now cleaning keyboard.
Excellent!
Tim F.
Boy, I hope that isn’t a racial slur. I sometimes use it (like, in this post) to convey my impression that North Korea and a deeply, incomprehensibly weird place.
les
From a slightly different approach, Yglesias gives a nice summation:
ThymeZone
Anxiously awaiting Darrell’s comment on this.
Looks like doing a bad job sometimes actually has consequences.
OCSteve
Not exactly an apology for anything I said about Clinton – but a helping of crow and a retraction for giving the administration the benefit of the doubt for their actions between Jan 01 and Oct 02.
ThymeZone
Or, “fuckheads” for Republicans.
ThymeZone
I admire all honest partisans, even when we are not on the same side of the issues at times.
Why aren’t there more like you, OCSteve?
Lee
Pretty sure Nork is not a racial slur, but I could be wrong.
Just short version of NORth Korean.
Faux News
Well Darrell is getting his ass kicked as usual. Time for a thread hijack. Perhaps Darrell can tell us more about Global Warming on Mars and Venus compared to that on Earth?
Krista
Hey, there’s no shame in it. You were arguing in good faith based on what you thought was right. Were I you, instead of eating crow, I’d be spitting fire that the people I trusted have turned out to be such unapologetic screwups.
ThymeZone
Yep, that might go down as his greatest gaffe ever.
I really enjoyed talking to him about the temperature-pressure relationship in gasses.
I think his reaction was, “Oh yeah?”
Richard 23
Hmmm. OK. The next time I run into a group of Koreans I’ll ask if any of them are Norks. I’m sure they’ll enjoy it!
He should probably visit those places to gather evidence, whether he wants to go or not.
Krista
I said I didn’t think it was an epithet. It could very well be. I tried looking around for more info, and all I could really find was that it is a British slang term for boobies (which I already knew). There was one mention of it being a slang term for North Koreans, but that’s all it said: slang. I still wouldn’t go up to a North Korean and call him a NorK, but neither would I go up to an American and call him a Yank. It’s not an epithet, but it IS a little bit obnoxious, IMO.
Cyrus
I don’t know if it’s a slur, but I always think it’s telling that Darrell prefers to use made-up, diminuitive names for people or groups rather than calling them who or what they are. The first time I saw “Nork” was in a comment of his, and I was surprised to see that it’s neither unique to him nor, apparently all that offensive. Is writing out “North Korea” (or for that matter, even just “DPRK”) really that much of a strain on his attention span? Or is it too respectful to Jose Padilla/North Koreans/Emmanuel Goldstein to call them by their real names — it almost treats them like people, that’s way too good for them, that sort of thing?
There are plenty of other obvious examples. All the nicknames Bush has made up for the press corps, George Allen with his foreign-looking friend Macaca, your average dumbass high school jock, and all the people who use “Hitlery”, “Republican’t”, “Democrap”, etc.
It’s dumb when people make up nicknames for other people just to show that they can. It’s really, really dumb, and yet it’s one of those things that it’s hard to address without looking a little petty yourself, and is often totally unnoticed in the first place — I remember reading some comment a while ago from a lifelong Democrat who said he uses the “Democrat Party” phrase himself — so the dysfunctional nuts who do it just keep doing it.
OCSteve
John covers the fire spitting for both of us :)
But yeah, I’m pretty much there. I do give up. There is little I could defend them on anymore, but every time I do it’s only a matter of time until something else comes out that makes me wish I hadn’t.
Darrell
Well sure, if by “worked just fine” you mean flagrant, repeated violations of the agreement from Day one
1994:
Duh
And so much more
And on and on and on. Point is, the Norks were not complying with the agreement and they never intended to.
Only in the “reality based” community can it be believed that everything was working just fine until warmonger Bush forced the Norks to develop nukes, when in fact, the Norks had been playing us for suckers for years and Bush {gasp} dared to call them on it.
Richard 23
I overlooked Tim’s usage of “Nork” but couldn’t help notice that Darrell used it over and over and over. I looked back at Tim’s post “handing nukes to Norks” and thought he was trying to be ironic with his catchy turn of phrase. Sounds like an unfortunate slogan you might hear tumble out of the mouth of a politician (Joe Biden, perhaps).
If one has an affectionate nickname for a race or class of people or simply an individual (“fatty”) that you wouldn’t use in their presence, it’s probably an insult.
I don’t really care that “Nork” is shorthand for “North Korean.” That’s obvious. It doesn’t mean it isn’t also insulting. See “Jap.” (It’s short for “Japanese” so what’s the big deal?)
Is “Sork” a word too, or do we only dehumanize our enemies with cute nicknames?
Sorry about going off topic here. I’ll knock it off.
Darrell
OC, what are you apologizing for? The Norks have lied and cheated on the agreement from the very beginning. Difference being, Bush called them on it, whereas Clinton buried his head in the sand, pretending, like TimF, that everything was “working just fine” with the Koreans.
What is the basis for your mea culpa? You don’t offer an explanation in the ObsidianW post. Or perhaps you too believe that things were “just fine” with N. Korea until Bush forced the Norks to ‘begin’ developing nuclear weapons.
Darrell
No you’re not. You’re an obsessed freak incapable of writing a coherent post on thread topics, so you rant over bizarre off-topic issue or you snark. That’s all you ever do.
Faux News
Without question. It was a fatal flaw for the Darrell Trollbot. A real Jedi Troll would have retired the Troll moniker “Darrell”, waited a few weeks, then reinvented himself under a new name.
dreggas
Next thing you know you’ll be showing up to a Drinking Liberally event LOL. Seriously, I hear ya I gave these asshats the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 and it was a really, really shitty feeling to finally realize the joke was on all of us and these people were just as freaking bad as they seemed. It’s one instance where the deciders “Fool me once” logic comes into play. None of them could fool me again.
The one really good thing that has come out of this dung heap for me personally though was the re-awakening of the part of me that follows the DTA model when it comes to the government and to always question what they tell me.
Richard 23
Wow. I’m going to need some ice for that spanking you just gave me. Fortunately you never go off topic or change the subject do you, asshole? Darrell the trained hamster is dishonest to the core.
Ted
He’s begun the shrieking! I always enjoy this part.
Jake
Full Irony Jacket.
jh
Good lord, the stupidity……
I’ll make this very simple.
Was it before or after the withdrawal from the Agreed Framework that the North Koreans actually tested a plutonium weapon?
Think about it very carefully.
Darrell
If Iran is seriously violating their nuclear agreement and moving forward with development of nuclear weapons, I think we should send them letters of protest(!) and even maybe criticize them in public.. but NEVER EVER do anything about it. That’s a sure fired formula for “success”.
les
If ever there were wasted words…
Darrell
Are you so pathetically stupid as to believe that the Norks suddenly “began” development of nuclear weapons after Bush ‘forced’ them to with his warmongering ways? Just curious as to how far the delusions go.
Punchy
This trend is fun!
Sucs–South Carolininas
Suks–South Koreans
Whores–Western Oregonians
Tits–Trinidad and Tobagoians
Asses–American Somoaians
C-Pubs–Czech Republic
Darrell
From the comment section of Obsidian W post linked at the top of the thread
Incredible really. So if N. Korea violates its agreement in the most serious way possible, even then, according to hilzoy, we should continue to stick with the agreement according to hilzoy. That is really an incredible position to hold, no less bizarre than hoping magic fairy dust will keep the Norks in line. And not just bizarre, but a dangerously naive and stupid position, as any agreement in which one side repeatedly violates the terms in the most serious ways, is not worth the paper it’s printed on…
OCSteve
Darrell: I had previously argued several times with several people that Bush deserved the benefit of the doubt from the time he took office until Oct 02 when the secret program became public.
I argued that he took over the problem with the knowledge that they had this secret program therefore it was entirely reasonable for him to say, “Whoa – let’s re-evaluate this whole thing.”
I made those arguments based on there being, you know, a serious enrichment program. Now I find out that was not the case. So now it looks to me like another case of inflating intelligence. With this disclosure I now think W was an idiot for essentially not repairing the AF, whatever it took.
And it pisses me off to NO end that I have been supporting this administration for years and then I find out case by case that I have been a damned DUPE. It is not one thing – it is one thing after another. That’s my fault. But enough already.
Perry Como
We should take the Bush administration approach. Don’t talk to Iran and let them get nukes, just like North Korea. Smart. Strong.
Ted
Now he’s trolling other blogs and posting his responses here. Not an improvement.
Bas-O-Matic
Indeed I have lost count how many rightwingers have indicted Clinton for failing to do anything about North Korea’s massive, obvious uranium enrichment activities. I will go out on a limb and predict that we can count the apologies on one finger.
Sorry if someone up there got to this joke before me, but, I don’t think that finger is an apology.
tBone
Cue Tim:
I know reading is hard, Darrell, but you should try it sometime.
Darrell
Steve, are you aware of the fact the a DOE intelligence report from 1999 under Bill Clinton alleged the very same thing? And does that fact cause you to reconsider at all?
This is the part I have a problem with. On one side, we have the Norks lying and deceiving from the beginning with no intention of keeping their side of the bargain, yet you seriously assert that we should just “repair” the AF, doing “whateve it takes”?
I’m sorry, but that’s nuts. It really is. The agreement was a dangerous mistake which bought the N. Koreans time. If the Norks repeatedly violated the agreement in serious ways from the beginning, why then is it so important, in your view, to “do whatever it takes” to stay in such a deal?
rachel
This is a surprise… not. Ever since the “Axis of Evil” speech I and most of the people I know have been more worried about the Bushites than we’ve been of the Norks.
Punchy
And so…Darrell? What DO we do? Shall we bomb them, bomb then invade them, nuke bomb them and hope none of the radiation fallout kills the Japanese, or all of the above.
You of all complaints and no answers. Just whine and bitch about everything but offer no solutions. Typical righty.
Rome Again
Wouldn’t that be tats? Tits would be Trinidadians in Tobago.
tBone
Yep, much better to pull out of the agreement and rattle sabers for a few years. That really stopped them in their tracks.
Rome Again
Sorry, I’m not playing with Darrell today. I’m having a GREAT day and I refuse to let him shit all over it. I’m just here for the snark, fair warning.
tBone
I say we nuke them when prevailing winds are blowing towards Japan, wait a few months, then send in the newly mutated Japanese lizard-monsters as an invasion force.
Darrell
The first thing to do is acknowledge that when one side in the agreement is lying and cheating from the get go, that you don’t really have an “agreement”, you have a scam. But what I’m hearing from the left, is that no matter how seriously the Norks violate their agreement, we must never walk away from it. That is the kind of dangerous thinking that reminds people why liberals cannot be trusted with national security.
Darrell
That statement encapsulates the “thinking” of the left.
tBone
The old “liberals cannot be trusted with national security” chestnut? Ouch. You’re really scraping the bottom of the spoof barrel today.
And I notice you didn’t answer the question (shock!). What do we do about NK? What should we have done in the Clinton years? What’s the Darrell Solution?
Mary
I love Tim so much I want to take him out behind the middle school and get him pregnant. [/30Rock]
Punchy
Uh oh. No we dih-inht. Lookie what Atrios found…
Good Lord. What DOESNT the Patriot Act allow the gov’t to do? I’m convinced that deep within the Patriot Act, there’s a rider for a clause that allows an exemption to a statute pertaining to a law…that basically allows government employees to crap on your front lawn once a week and never clean it up. All in the name of “national security”.
Darrell
No OC, you don’t know whether or not the reports of NK enriching uranium are true. Neither do I. And either way, does it make a difference whether they mastered the plutonium bomb and dropped HEU? Either way, they’ve got nuclear weapons, and they have trampled on the AF since the very beginning.
Krista
I’d like to hear your answer as well. You said that the first step would be to acknowledge that the other side is lying and cheating. Then what? After you walk away from this sham agreement, how do you then keep them from developing nuclear weaponry?
rachel
No, that statement encapsulates the thinking of people living in South Korea–people who actually pay attention to what the Norks are up to, and try not to fool themselves about it.
Unlike you, you colossal idiot.
Darrell
First, let’s have some acknowledgment that the leftist “answer” is to continue the sham agreement no matter what. A naively dangerous solution if there ever was one. Because of the proximity to Seoul, destroying NK facilities is risky, so that option has to be put at the bottom of the list of possibilities.
One answer which Bush finally delivered on, is cutting the massive subsidies we were giving the Norks. N. Korea was the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the Asia Pacific region under Bill Clinton. All the money given to a deranged mass murdering dictator who starves his people, in order to support his army and his nuclear ambitions. That support has ended, and that’s a good thing, and Bush is to thank for that change.
Another approach which Bush pioneered, is the involvement of China in putting pressure on the Norks. Norks are a drain on China’s pocketbook and with the prevailing winds in the area being what they are, China knows very well that the nuclear cloud from an atomic blast in NK would likely carry over into China. Bush shrewdly exploited this vulnerability to play China off NK to keep pressure on, as China is incentivized to keep a lid on Kim’s lunacy.
Darrell
Tell us then rachel, what are the Norks really up to? Let’s see – million man army while civilians starve, nuclear weapons development program, Stalinist dictator who is a lunatic. But Bush is the “real” threat according to you, and others who ‘know’ better.
Perry Como
That’s why North Korea doesn’t have nukes! Brilliant!
ThymeZone
Absolutely. Those assholes have already done far more damage to this country than North Korea will probably ever do. On every level.
That’s what the last two years on this blog have been all about. The destruction of America by incompetant, corrupt officials. If it weren’t for that, you and John Cole would still be sitting here talking as if it were still January 2002.
That ship sailed a long time ago. Bush is the greatest threat to this country. He’s a lying alcoholic fuck, and he’s president. How much more dangerous can you get than that?
Rome Again
Darrell will never figure this out.
Jake
Ah but you see, “Now what do we do?” is an irrelevant question to the average jackelope rehabilitation and release artist. It is up to you as a leftocrat to come up with a solution so the JRRA can say it won’t work.
And what the hell can we do about a maniac with a huge army and now Da Bomb? Hope the voices in his head don’t get too insistent I guess. Hope his huge army doesn’t get so hungry they barge into SoKo in search of food, I suppose. And promise to let the damn maniac have his iPods and expensive booze if he behaves. But others here will point out that this blog entry wasn’t about keeping Kim Jong Illin’ under wraps, it was about Bush Administration screw ups re: What KJI had and when he had it. Such is the wonder and skill of the accomplished JRRA.
ThymeZone
You mean George Bush?
Oh, wait …
OCSteve
Darrell:
First of all dude, I am with you politically. I am. You want to argue conservative positions in the abstract; I am with you all night long. I have your back.
RR screwed me bad when he cut PELL grants. He screwed me bad, like life-changing bad. But I loved the man and thought he could do no wrong. Still do – I’ll argue that he won the cold war.
I have never voted other than R until this past election. A lot of years just blindly pulling the big R handle.
But then we have this administration. Can you highlight for me those conservative values they have managed to promote?
Never mind.
Let’s talk about today, right now. YOU – have not deserted your party. You have defended them PAST the point where most people would. I did too. Something about R and D – D is quicker to turn on each other. R jumps into that trench for the final charge. YOU were faithful. Your party used you and screwed you – sans Vaseline.
Dude – we have been supporting some seriously questionable shit for years! We have to deal with that. Not WE the party – they are lost. You and me – as individuals. They have used us, again and again, and we have bought it, again and again. And AGAIN. I can’t keep this up anymore.
Crow is tough. Crow sucks. I’ve eaten muskrat dude – and crow is much worse. I have eaten a bit lately so I have some recipes. I recommend a crock pot, half a bottle of red wine, a couple of potatoes, and let it go all day. Getting up and eating it raw in the morning – that ain’t no way to live.
Darrell – I am on your side, I say you have fought the good fight, but it is time to stand down. We – you and I, have been FUCKED. Not by liberals or Democrats, but by this administration. John caught it long ago. He was right. As much as it sticks in your throat to say it – liberals were right and we were wrong.
Leaves an awful taste Huh? I recommend 12 year old Bourbon.
tBone
Yeah, thank goodness Bush used his shrewditity to point out basic geographical facts to the map-deprived Chinese. Otherwise NK might have gotten nuclear weapons!
Strong. Smart. Shrewd.
ThymeZone
Drinks for the house, on me.
Courageous post, OC. Tip o’the hat.
tBone
Great post, OCS. Unfortunately I have 10-1 odds that Darrell will now accuse you of being a closet Leftist who only pretends to be a conservative. Everyone here – liberals, moderates, former Republicans – we’re all far-left whackjobs if we disagree with Darrell.
Rome Again
OC, awesome post, WOW! Glad to know someone really gets it on the right side.
Rome Again
No way I’m betting against that.
dreggas
OCSteve,
It won’t work…he’s lost just like the party and the rest of the 34 percenters…
OCSteve
I’ve used the same handle for years, all my blog life – OCSTEVE. He or any of you can search year’s worth of blog comments and see how my position changed over the years. Here, ObWi, WOC, etc. I’ve been hanging mostly at ObWi for a long time so start there. The various site owners can verify my IP if he disputes it.
John was quick and uh, rather explosive. I took longer and it happened in the comments section.
Darrell
OC, I asked you about some specific positions you hold, in particular, your comment about how we should have done “whatever it takes” to keep the AF in place with NK after they so flagrantly violated their end of the agreement.. and instead of responding to those questions, you ignore them completely and go off on an unrelated tangent about the Republican party with accusations about my “support” which you could never hope to support.
How about answering the questions I posed you on this thread? Or do prefer the preening and posing act instead?
Darrell
What positions have I defended you’re now saying I should “stand down” on? Be specific please.
Darrell
I agree. Bush’s unwillingness to take decisive action to curtail illegal immigration, and his wild-ass spending ways have definitely screwed this country.
rachel
Darrell: Did you miss the part where I called you a colossal dunderhead? I’d argue with you if there were any point, but there isn’t because, as you have proven over the course of the last few years, you are basically dishonest and ignorant. Therefore I will not waste my time. I look forward to the day when the rest of the people here realize this, too.
Darrell
Them’s purty words coming from a full-on moonbat like yourself. And you gotta admit, claiming Bush is a bigger threat than the mass murdering stalinist dictator of N. Korea is moonbattery personified.. either that, or a cry for help
Ted
Indeed. We’re not rabid nationalists who consider our motives, methods, and rulers to be infallible. We don’t consider everything our country does right and good just because we’re the ones that did it. We’re capable of occasionally argeeing with legitimate grievances non-Americans may have with us.
Do you feel about the consequences of your own personal actions the same way you do about our national actions? If so, you’re one hell of a prick, but that’s in line with everything we’ve all seen of you here.
What’s it like to be universally reviled by every last commenter here, and every blogger here as well? Not just disagreed with, reviled.
Darrell
Given the filth like you who post here, I take it as a compliment.
Ted
You didn’t answer my question, Darrell. What’s it like? Seriously, someone took the time to write a damn script to filter out your thread litter. That’s impressive assholery.
So you aren’t filth? Am I filth because of my politics? Is that it? Or is it because I said things that you didn’t like? Am I filth like Hitler, or Stalin? What makes me filth, and you a fine individual? And if you don’t like who posts here, why do you post here? I seriously don’t understand it. Do you think you’re contributing anything here? Everyone here regards your posts as inane bullshit.
And Darrell, the reason liberals don’t subscribe to your brand of “fuck the world, we’ll screw or kill whomever we want” is because we don’t want to have our grandkids have to deal with an entire planet that is uniting against this country, economically, or militarily. Darrell’s view of proper US foreign policy would have this country invaded, defeated, and occupied a century from now.
Ted
I would not be surprised if Darrell’s a Netvocates professional type getting paid his Wingnut Welfare. I can’t really explain why else he would post comments here.
Krista
Ditto. I think that was one of the most honest and brave things written on here in awhile.
Richard 23
Darrell, have a midol. It might help with the cramps and bloating that make you so crabby. Of course your problem may require some other course of treatment. YMMV.
OCSteve
It means negotiations rather than bluster. A few thousand gallons of fuel oil? Who gives a shit?!? We snort that in a day. In hindsight, whatever it takes means just that. WHATEVER IT TAKES. Does caps help? Dude – we have been had. You and I. Screwed, blued, and tattooed. I fought the good fight for a long time. I lost today. You have lost too. Suck it up.
Rome Again
Uh, yup!
Darrell
Let’s be clear. Even though NK has flagrantly violated their side of the agreement repeatedly, you think doing “whatever it takes” to maintain the sham AF is the answer.
Speaking of blather, more phony posturing on your part OC.
Rome Again
10 to 1 odds – WINNER!
Darrell
You never bother to explain or elaborate as to how we’ve “been had”.. for that reason I think you’re a posturing phony.
Your explanation for why we should do “whatever it takes” to maintain the sham AF was lame.. really lame.
“We’ve been had. I never explain how or why, but it feels like I’m speaking truth to power, so I keep repeating myself.”
OCSteve
I’m busted dude. You got me. That is what I came here to do. Posture for you.
I’ve been around here almost as long as you. Certainly I remember you were a pain in the ass from day one. You kind of embody the type of, “Christ, I hope you are not on my side!”
Anyway – let’s agree that your views do not represent mine, nor mine yours.
You know what? I have been hanging mostly on ObWi lately where I consciously watch my language. Here? Hah! I can’t even compete. In a spurt of freedom I am quite happy to say: SCREW YOU!
I may register Independent just because of you. Bah.
Darrell
No, you’re posturing and preening for yourself. That’s exactly why you keep repeating the same lines, and why you can’t substantively answer direct questions. Much easier to posture and pontificate. You’re phony as hell.
Rome Again
Ah, that’s just priceless coming from the biggest Bush ass-kisser currently alive!
Punchy
I dont care what she calls herself, that’s pedophilia.
Rome Again
OMG!
Darrell
Truth is, OCSteve, whether he’s commenting here or at ObsidianW, relishes the praise and adoration from liberals over his role as “conservative” who has “seen the light”, which is why he repeats his talking points so often.
As on this thread, he doesn’t address the specifics issues and points being made, and when he does choose one or two to answer, he offers pathetically lame arguments.. instead preferring to repeat his “We were wrong, liberals were right” talking points to the delight of the giggling groupies on the left who infest this site, just as he receives similar praise from the leftards over at ObsidianW. It’s sad and pathetic from a psychological standpoint, but need for approval can be a powerful force, particularly among the most insecure.
He can’t substantively answer the direct questions on this thread or elsewhere, because honest answers would conflict with his new narrative. It’s phony as hell, but the leftists reassure him that he’s speaking ‘truth to power’, so he feels better about himself.
Rome Again
I call bullshit!
TOS simply noticed there were thing about the current Republican party that he couldn’t deal with and you can’t possibly admit to. That makes him smart, and you a coward.
ThymeZone
Technical detail dept:
Steve
TheOtherSteve
OCSteve
Three different people. Darrell is arguing with OCS, not TOS.
Resume!
Darrell
Tell us Rome, what “things” specifically about the Rebublican party has OCSteve “noticed”? Tell us, please.
He has made a lot of broad-brush blathering, but he’s way light on backing up his arguments – the true hallmark of a phony blowhard who is more concerned with posturing and pontification. If he wants to defend his assertions, he should make and argument rather than blather in the abstract. That is why he is such a phony.
Rome Again
The fact that they lie, the fact that they obfuscate, the fact that they court far-right religious votes over true conservative votes and push issues that issues that are meant to only piss off religious voters, not issues attuned to the conservative voter. The fact that they start wars rumor and innuendo that can’t be proven? There are many examples of such behavior in this administration and you just give them a pass each time. You seem to have no problem with the Bush presidency, but only those who speak out against it. You’re a hack Darrell, a right wing Bushite hack, plain and simple.
TOS realizes his party left him and let him down… you seem to apparently be one of those people who responsible for such a stark change in the Republican party. Apropos to you, now watch you ESAD!
Darrell
Rome, you were much better when you played the role of the simpleton, rather than your new role as simpleton hack. Regarding my “no problem” with Bush, again you are dishonest as hell (but still a simpleton)
Rome Again
Sorry, I meant to finish my post a little differently, I have a sensitive keyboard here and sometimes I lose part of what I’m writing, that last part should have read:
Rome Again
Excuse me Darrell while I go puke. After all the shit this adninistration has done, that’s the ONE thing you take exception to. My, my, how DO you sleep at night?
BARRASSO
Holy shit, if you all want to be depressed checkout Salon’s story about the clustercatastrodistrictanallublessfuck the Iraq war has become.
Darrell
Rome, I knew you were a simpleton, but I thought you could at least count to two. I listed TWO things, not one. Two big things.. Kinda sad I had to spell it out like this, but we already knew you weren’t too bright.
Rome Again
yeah, excuse me if I don’t get all upset over the things that bother you while people are fucking dying in a trumped up war. FUCK OFF hack!
Rome Again
You know what Darrell? I’ll admit,I have little time for reading your posts. The fact that I scanned your statement and I didn’t see the words Iraq, or War, or Death was enough for me to respond to. So what if I didn’t read every single one of your petty words. A fucking waste of my time if you ask me.
Rome Again
Yeah, two BIG things, because the furrinern goons are gonna live off welfare and steal your money and then kick you out of Amurka. Go to hell Darrell, your selfcenteredness is absolutely appalling.
Rome Again
People are dying in a war of OUR choosing, and you are concerned about immigration and money. WOW, just WOW!
tBone
See, you’re operating on the assumption that facts matter to Darrell. Facts are just speed bumps to him – mildly annoying, but they can’t slow him down for long.
Turn down the lights on that projector, Darrell. You’re going to blind us all.
Here’s a hint, Skippy – the reason that OCS usually gets treated with respect is because he gives it in return, even in the midst of an argument. I know this is a foreign concept to you, the guy who starts dropping napalm the instant that someone even mildy disagrees with you.
But hey, keep pushing away all of the reasonable conservatives who are left in the Republican Party. It just gets us closer to that moment when all that’s left are you 30-percenters. The Thunderdome free-for-all clusterfuck that results when you inevitably start turning on each other is going to be awesome.
lard lad
I could go on, but I’m already bored…
Tell me this, Darrell – since you feel so strongly that using diplomacy and treaties with the North Koreans is such a fool’s game, what say you to the cold hard fact that Bush’s new deal with Korea is a virtual carbon copy of the Clinton plan? Surely you aren’t applying all the invective quoted above to Our Dear Leader, are you…?
Ted
Along with the rest of the 30%’ers, Darrell struggles to keep above the waves.
rachel
What can he say? “It’s not wrong when Bush does it”?
OCSteve
Like I said, I’m busted. You got me Darrell. I live for praise from liberals.
Here’s a hint. At some point it’s just right to admit you were wrong. If you have been debating people for years it’s just right to admit to them that you were wrong and they were right. It a bit painful – but think of it as pulling off a bandage. Just do it quick and get it over with.
OCSteve
One other thing Darrell:
As I said, I am still a conservative. I’ll argue for conservative principles all day long with any liberal here or anywhere. If you do the same I will back you up all the way. Will that earn me your approval? Will you praise me? Because after all, that is what I crave you know.
I am a conservative and always will be. I’m just no longer a member of the GOP. There is a huge difference in case you have not noticed.
Darrell
I agree that the recent agreement with the Norks was in most ways, as bad as the deal Clinton/Carter made with them. It was big mistake for the Bush administration to do it.
The only difference is that Bush has shown the balls to call out the Norks on violations of the agreement (in 2003 and 2005), whereas Clinton kept his head in the sand while the Norks repeatedly violated the agreement with impunity moving forward with their nuclear weapons development.
Darrell
Ah yes, when you have no substantive answers, just keep on repeating the same talking points which have won so much adoration from liberals for your “honesty”.
Again, your pathetically lame explanation for why we should have kept the AF with NK “at all costs” (your words verbatim) when NK was repeatedly violating their end of the agreement for years makes clear that you’re phony as hell. And since you have no substance, you’ll just lapse back to your standard well-rehearsed lines as a response to everything:
“I am a conservative. We were wrong. Liberals were right”
Slow it down OC, you make a pathetic spectacle.
Pb
So, Glenn Greenwald wrote a post recently, called Why do so many neoconservatives lack the courage of their convictions?, and I’ll be damned if they don’t sound exactly like Darrell! Does Darrell write for The Corner too?
P.S. Greetings, OCSteve, good to see you back around these parts…
Darrell
No it’s not, it’s because he mindlessly repeats the talking points you leftards so crave to hear.
If it was about respect, you loons wouldn’t have driven off Defense Guy with your unhinged rantings, or “cordially” Rick, or the rest of the mostly respectful conservatives who used to post here all the time. Most of you are clinically insane and it takes unusually thick skin to hang here.
Darrell
Where? Show us an example. On this very thread you took strong issue against a conservative position, insisting that an agreement in which Norks had repeatedly violated from the very beginning, should have been kept in place “at all costs” no matter, because having a paper agreement trumps all.
When you were challenged on that very non-conservative position, you just lapsed into talking-point mode.
Punchy
Darrell–please, PLEASE explain “call out”. You mean cancel the Agreement? This is “calling out”??
Because any way you crunch your righty math, the NKs had no nukes when Clinton was prez, and now they have them under Bush. So glad he “called them out”, because it’s done WONDERS for their plutonium nuke development.
Maybe he should call out Iran next. Ya know, help speed up the process…
Darrell
Yes.
The alternative, of course, the one you presumably are in favor of, is for the US to continue to fund NK with fuel and other aid while the Norks repeatedly violate their side of the agreement which they never had any intention of abiding by.
Zombie Santa Claus
Let’s just nuke the entire place from orbit.
It’s the only way to be sure.
Richard 23
Darrell has a new book coming out: “How To Lose Friends and Insult People.” With a special section on how to gain your opponent’s respect.
jg
Darrell have you ever heard of Leo Strauss?
Jake
Chapter 1: Making friends – Stalk ’em til they surrender.
tBone
Told you, OCSteve. You’re just a closet liberal who craves the approval of your fellow leftards. In Darrellworld, anyway.
Or an unusually thick skull, in your case.
Perry Como
There are a few alternatives. If part of the agreement is that we provide DPRK with 100,000 units of fuel a month, why not decrease it to 50,000 units of fuel until they live up to their side of the bargain? It’s called negotiation. The other option of the Bush option: cut off contact and let North Korea get nukes. Brilliant!