north korea

Can't Find the Words

Bobblehead Gibbs

by  Lance Thompson  

I’ve been having trouble coming up with a column lately, and certainly not because there are fewer official decisions to object to.  Rather, I find it difficult to express my objections to current administration policy with the existing vocabulary, without veering into invective.  Therefore, I decided to make up a few of my own terms to deal with the issues before us.

For example, how does one describe an administration that seems completely divorced from the reality of the nuclear threats from Iran, North Korea, Communist China and whoever ends up running Pakistan?  But one must also address the relentless apology tours of the President as he asks forgiveness for our military’s fight against oppression, our nation’s imprisoning of terrorists, and our moral leadership on the world stage?

What is the term for a president who is both asleep at the wheel and endlessly seeking forgiveness?  NAPOLOGIST.

What is the term for a Supreme Court nominee who openly ridicules the system of checks and balances that underpin our Constitution, vows to legislate from the bench, and believes that her own Hispanic heritage and gender make her more qualified than any white male?   But the term must also infer the widespread outrage and reaction this nominee causes in the opposition.  Cultural and sexual chauvinism and incited panic would both be encompassed in the term HERSPANIC.

We need a word that conveys a president who has spent four months multiplying our massive debt with unprecedented spending, but also needs three jets to take the First Lady on a dream date to New York, including one plane just for the press.  A president who is unconcerned with the fiscal realities of the nation, yet fully capable of lavishing his attention on his own social calendar can only be called OUTDATING.

How does one describe a President who, during his campaign, vowed to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the prisoners to the United States for trial and incarceration?  But the term would also have to include the refusal of any governor to host the prisoners, and the president’s own immediate reversal of his own policy.  If one were to advise this president to carefully study a situation before making unenlightened decisions that would not lead embarrassing situations, it might be called GIT MO INFO.

What do you call a White House press secretary who never answers a direct question, speaks in sentence fragments that would mystify the most devoted text messenger, and whose incoherent syntax defies analysis?

This master communicator explains policies with a series of unintelligible monosyllables, ducks challenges with a dismissive glazed-over expression, and considers giggling an effective verbal riposte. This executive staff position should simply be known as MISPOKESMAN.

I’m sure more terms will arise as events dictate, but we should apply these first few as needed.  I’ll be on holiday for the first half of June, so maybe the next couple of weeks’ events will inspire an entirely new vocabulary.

North Korea set to fire long-range missile, report says

47239667

Reporting from Seoul — North Korea has positioned its most sophisticated long-range ballistic missile at a launch site for a test firing that could come within weeks, a newspaper here reported today.

Pyongyang, which last month raised tensions worldwide by conducting a nuclear test, could even fire its missile June 16, when South Korean President Lee Myung-bak meets with President Obama in Washington, according to the report.

In recent days, North Korea has ordered all shipping traffic from waters off its western coast, a ban it said was effective through July.

The move comes while the U.N. Security Council contemplates new sanctions against North Korea’s underground nuclear test and launching of five short-range missiles last month.

The Dong-a Ilbo newspaper in Seoul reported that the new missile set for launch from the Dongchang-ni launch site on North Korea’s west coast may be a version of the Taepodong-2 rocket that Pyongyang fired in April.

The report, citing unnamed sources, said the missile had a range of up to 4,000 miles and could reach Alaska.

Both South Korea and Japan acknowledged today that a new North Korean long-range missile test could come within weeks.

“Given that North Korea has carried out a nuclear test, we can’t deny the possibility that they will further test-fire an intercontinental ballistic missile,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura told a news conference in Tokyo.

Without mentioning the new North Korean missile, South Korean President Lee said in a radio address that his nation would not tolerate further provocations from Pyongyang. pyongyang-north-korea-nc

Advertisements –> Email Archiving | Exchange Hosting | Bonita Web Design “North Korea’s second nuclear test last week brought great disappointment and shock not only to our people, but the entire world,” Lee said, who echoed U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ claim that the world would not accept a nuclear-armed North Korea.

During a news conference in Manila, where he is meeting with Filipino military officials, Gates confirmed that North Korea appears to be preparing a long-range missile. But, Gates added, “at this point, it’s not clear what they’re going to do.”

Following last month’s nuclear test by North Korea, Seoul joined a U.S.-led initiative to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons — by North Korea or any other nation.

Pyongyang responded with anger, implying that it would no longer abide by the armistice that was signed to bring an end to fighting between north and south in 1953. But Lee indicated today that Seoul would not back down.

If Pyongyang “refuses to take the path to dialogue and chooses the path of military threats and provocation, [South Korea] will never tolerate such threats.”

“We sincerely hope for peace but will sternly deal with any threats,” said Lee, who is attending an Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations summit on the southern island of Jeju.

South Korean newspapers have reported that a train carrying a long-range missile arrived at a missile base 120 miles northwest of Pyongyang, where a launch pad had been erected. The press reports speculated that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il might visit the site in early June.

In a release on Friday, Pyongyang’s state-run Korean Central News Agency said that the nation had “a right to conduct as many nuclear tests or missile launches as it wants in the event that the supreme interests of the state are infringed upon.”

“Such self-defensive measures do not run counter to any other international law,” the release stated.

Analysts say Pyongyang may be looking to disrupt the June summit between Lee and Obama, who will discuss the ongoing crisis on the Korean peninsula. Pyongyang’s last rocket launch, in April, was timed to coincide with an international summit in Europe.

“North Korea could possibly launch its missile during the summit between South Korea and the United States,” said Choi Choon-heum, senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul. “The last rocket launch was in April when the G20 meeting took place.”

north_koreaOther analysts agreed that a missile launch appeared certain if the U.N. lays out new sanctions.

“North Korea has said that if the U.N. Security Council agrees on sanctions, it would stage a nuclear test or missile test,” said Paik Hak-soon, director of the Center for North Korean Studies at Sejong Institute near Seoul.

“They think this is their chance to test fire an ICBM. They’re thinking: Let’s get a status of a nuclear state. And besides that, we can achieve a capability for the ICBM.”

In belligerent language, North Korea continually has defied the international community in recent weeks. The communist state is angry over sanctions enacted by the Security Council following its April 5 rocket launch.

Pyongyang insisted that it placed a communications satellite into space although intelligence reports suggested that the launch was a disguised missile test.

In recent days, the Korean peninsula has become more tense with Pyongyang’s nuclear test and the firing of five short-range missiles.

On Thursday, North Korea also will put on trial two U.S. journalists who were taken into custody in March, reportedly while on North Korean soil.

The reporters, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, who work for a San Francisco-based television station, are accused of entering the country illegally and engaging in “hostile acts.”

john.glionna@latimes.com

News assistant Ju-min Park in The Times’ Seoul bureau contributed to this report

 

 

Foreign Policy: What Obama Must Do

One of the biggest items of “change” that President-elect Barack Obama ran on was in the department of foreign policy. It was one of the major reasons that he was able to engineer an upset of Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries and clinch the nomination. However, when faced with the realities of a dangerous world, one that was dangerous before George W. Bush took office, “change” may seemingly have to take a back seat in order to defeat Islamofacist terrorism.

First, Obama must make the commitment to winning in Iraq. During the campaign, Obama ran on a promise to end the war in Iraq. However, his plan for a 16-month troop withdrawal may hit a snag: How history will remember him in regards to winning an important theater in the first war for America’s existence since the Revolution.

If Obama commits to winning the war before pulling all of the troops (he can still hold his pledge on not having permanent bases despite the desires of the Iraqi government), history will think of John McCain as the whistleblower, George W. Bush as the implementer, and Barack Obama as the closer and victor. It’s a political win-win-win all around the board. It would also have historians forget that Obama was willing to concede defeat in the middle of the success of the surge.

Also, the American public is hearing little about what’s going on in Iraq today. Since the start of October, there have been a total of 17 U.S. troops killed over a 40 day period for an average of just under 0.43 troops per day dead. To top this off, there has only been one month this year (June) where the body count was greater than the number of days in the month. Prior to that stretch, the only months that had a monthly body count less than the number of days in the same respective month were in February 2004 and December 2007.

The other is for Obama to fulfill his complete campaign promise to pull all the troops within 16 months, or by the end of May 2010. This could be risky for his majorities in Congress should Iraq descend in to chaos. Already, Israel is about set to elect Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel thanks to the election of Obama on Tuesday. Netanyahu will likely have to take over as the leading head of state in the war on terror if Obama decides to withdraw any troops that are necessary for victory and appease rogue dictators who are supporting Islamofacist terrorists.

A withdrawal also empowers Iran and Syria who would align with the Shiite majority in Iraq and fight the Sunnis who will be backed by Jordan and Saudi Arabia. This would be problematic and a catastrophic failure of the Obama administration because Syria and Iran have been building up their military for an invasion of Israel, but would get the parting gift of Iraq. Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be unable to fight because Jordan has made peace with Israel and Saudi Arabia depends on the United States to protect them as it has since just before Desert Storm.

Pulling out of Iraq sends the mixed signal to forces fighting the United States in Afghanistan by saying “We don’t believe that this ‘surge’ worked in Iraq, but we’re going to implement it here against you anyway.” There would be an emboldening of the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan if the United States doesn’t commit to winning in Iraq alongside that of a troop surge in Afghanistan to root out insurgent forces once and for all.

Second, Obama must decommit himself from meeting with rogue dictators ranging from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il (it is still up in the air as to whether or not he’s alive), Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar Assad, and Cuba’s Raul Castro. It cannot happen because it would set up a disaster akin to what John F. Kennedy had after he met with Nikita Khrushchev.

The meeting resulted with the Soviet construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither of these were successfully concluded by the Kennedy White House. In the case of the Berlin Wall, it stood until 1989 when it was torn down as both Berlin and Germany were reunited. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis, Fidel Castro feared an invasion by American military forces that would oust him from power if the missiles were not taken back. Khrushchev acquiesced on the Cuban missiles.

Third, President-elect Obama must not condemn any actions taken by Israel in defense of their country. This was a problem of his that emerged when the Russians invaded Georgia this past summer. In his first response, Obama called on Georgia to “exercise restraint” in the defense of their country. This was absolutely laughable and showed his ignorance and naivety on foreign policy matters.

If Iran is accelerating towards a nuclear bomb and the Israelis have credible intelligence that indicates this, it would be wise to let Israel deal with the problem and take out Iran’s nuclear program with air strikes of their own. Should Netanyahu decide as Prime Minister (and he will win election in February) to bomb Iran, Obama would be wise to not condemn the actions of an ally against a mutual enemy. It is neither politically wise for him to do so nor would it be strategically wise in a worldwide war against Islamofacist terrorism.

Finally, Obama needs to come to the realization (and the intelligence briefings better do the trick) to make Obama realize that the enemy of Islamofacist terrorism is an even graver enemy than that what the Soviet Union could have ever been. That realization has to come about from the methods, tactics, and aspirations of Islamofacist terrorists versus that of the former Soviet Union.

The Soviet proliferation and expansion was initially as a result of their territorial gains and reconstruction of Eastern Europe from World War II. From 1945 to 1989, the Soviets had puppet Communist governments in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria as well as recapturing Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and absorbing them into the Soviet Union itself.

One of the greatest methods that the Soviets used was spreading military technology and money around to nations, especially Arab ones, in order to gain influence and to back them against Israel who was being backed by the United States and Western Europe. They also sought to further influence nationals from other nations by spreading Communist teachings and ideology.

Meanwhile, the Islamofacist approaches of countries like Syria and Iran as well as terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda results in a goal of complete subjugation to strict Islamic teachings and law. Their means are the use of intimidation by killing civilians with bombs and to pursue greater and more deadlier attacks throughout countries that don’t subscribe to or support their ideology.

If Obama decides that he is going to scale back the War on Terror and attempt to use a type of détente with terrorism like that of what Nixon, Ford, and Carter did with the Soviet Union, there will be many more major losses coming over the next four years. The end result of détente with the Soviets was their invasion of Afghanistan which was responded to with the Moscow Olympics boycott, the dumbest of all foreign policy decisions made since in the last 30 years.

There can never be coexistence with terrorism and President-elect Obama must come in to office on day one with that realization. Either we stop it and destroy its capabilities or we allow them to intimidate and dictate the future of freedom and liberty with subjugation under what many in the post-modernity West would consider barbaric.

Should Obama push for a kind of coexistence with those who have a goal to kill or subjugate us to their radical and barbaric philosophies of hate, he will be even more naïve than what America’s enemies are being led to believe.

 

Barack Obama's Greatest Hits

Barack Obama takes center stage in Denver tonight to accept the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. That makes today a great time to reflect on what Obama's campaign of hope and change hath wrought.

So here, for your viewing pleasure, is a compilation of Obama's greatest rhetorical hits from the past 19 months. I've limited this special package to 10 tracks and five minutes, but there surely are more that could have been included. Share your favorites in the comments.

The 10 tracks from this collection are:

1. Farewell To Arms -- Obama's plan to dismantle U.S. defenses
2. Loveable Rogues -- An open invitation for talks with global thugs
3. Bomb Iran -- Maybe, depending on what day you ask
4. Baby Be Gone -- No one wants to be "punished" with babies
5. Workin' 9 to 5 -- Tough questions are "above my pay grade"
6. The Gospel Of Barack -- The gay marriage Sermon on the Mount
7. Take The Race Bait -- Typical dollar bills ... and white people
8. Bitter -- The guns 'n Bibles crowd
9. Jeremiah Was An Albatross -- Tossed under the bus with Grandma
10. A Gaffe A Minute -- Fallen heroes in the 57 states of America.
 

Obama's 'civilian national security force'

Posted: July 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008  <!-- end copyright -->

 

<!-- begin bodytext -->

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

(Column continues below)

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601

 

 

Syndicate content