Pentagon Said Response To North Korea Would Be Hurt By Overstretched U.S. Military
Pentagon Said Response To North Korea Would Be Hurt By Overstretched U.S. Military
In the White House press briefing this afternoon, Tony Snow was asked whether the White House believes the military is so overstretched that it would trouble responding to a potential North Korea threat:
QUESTION: Do current military obligations in any way limit or restrict potential U.S. responses to North Korea?
SNOW: Not that I’m aware of. But that’s probably better posed to the Pentagon, which would have — it’s not a question that I can give you an informed answer to.
Snow may want to check in with the Pentagon himself because the Joint Chiefs of Staff has already stated on the record that the military would have trouble responding to a military conflict in either North Korea or Iran. From USA Today, 2/16/05:
Stretched thin in Iraq, the U.S. military would have trouble responding as quickly and effectively as commanders would like if it had to go to war in Iran or North Korea, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress Wednesday.
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, said a sudden military crisis in one of those two nations — both of which are resisting U.S. demands that they give up nuclear programs — would likely force the Pentagon to remobilize reserve and Guard components that have rotated home from Iraq to rest.
In addition, because of the current strain on U.S. forces, it would take longer for U.S. troops to respond to a crisis in Iran, North Korea or some other major conflict than U.S. battle plans call for, Myers told the House Armed Services Committee.
“The timeliness of our response might not be totally consistent with what the combatant commander wants and so forth,” Myers said.
(ed. note: The original title of the post caused confusion. We have updated it.)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
87 Responses to “Pentagon Said Response To North Korea Would Be Hurt By Overstretched U.S. Military”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think this is nitpicking on thinkprogress’s part. I mean, since when has Bush ever listened to facts, or advisors, or common sense, or reality, etc, etc, etc. Even if %110 of the military was occupied in the middle east right now…Bush would still sign papers sending troops to Korea if he wanted.
The fact is that Bush sees no value in fighting with Korea. They have nothing that himself, his buddies or his admin can profit from, unlike the middle east which has plenty of oil.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThis is a bit nitpicky, Snow is being the shitweasel he is paid to be. I don’t think he would know how well US forces are doing.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pmQuite a stretch.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:41 pmhe even says he’s not informed to give a good answer….
July 6th, 2006 at 4:42 pm. . . besides, the chaos Bush and his “advisors” have created in Iraq has pretty much used up all his bullets. The world must feel secure knowing Bush looks to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for “advice” on foreign affairs. God help us all.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pmIt is nitpicking by TP and what’s worse, the headline TP uses isn’t supported by Snow’s comments. C’mon guys…
July 6th, 2006 at 4:45 pmEd Schulz is giving Bushco a pretty good lambasting over this N. Korea abortion.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pmSo ThinkProgrssive is trying to say that we, the USA, don’t have enough ICBM’s, ships, or planes to turn North Korea or Iran into one big crater? Who needs soldiers for those wars anyways? Our ICBM’s are more then enough to slow both countries down in a big big way. It would also give us more then enough time to get our troops ready if they wanted even more USA involvement.
I don’t agree at all that we can’t “handle” a North Korea problem unless your saying we don’t have enough people to press the little red buttons that launch our Missles (and I’m talking about conventional missles, not nukes).
July 6th, 2006 at 4:50 pmBadmoodman,
You’re correct. TP should be using Bush’s own flip floppin, bungled, about face words instead of Tarbaby Snowjob’s.
Kim Jong Mentally Ill is making Bush look like a $5 whore.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:50 pmBen,
July 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pmCome back to reality.
They’ve already forgotten Kenny Boy. You’re gonna feel like you’ve been date raped when this is all over.
Iraq’s Oil Timeline
Read this then
July 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pmI’m as happy to jump on the ‘Bash Snow’ bandwagon as the next progressive, but in the interests of fairness, I feel compelled to point something out:
What Tony Snow said:
What ThinkProgress said Tony Snow said:
This title is misleading, deceptive, and just plain wrong. Tony never contradicted the Pentagon….what he did do is what Press Secretaries have been doing since the office was first created…string together a bunch a words to say nothing whatsoever.
SnowJob is bad enough without having to invent additional offenses.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:53 pmWow must be a slow newsday if ThinkStupid is picking on Tony Snow for saying “I don’t know, why don’t you ask the guys who do”. Snow was simply saying that he personnally doesn’t know if the military is stretched thin, and why don’t you ask the Pentagon, you simple-minded, liberal maggot? Besides, if the North Koreans ever launch a nuclear attack, we’ll turn their country into a parking lot. If they launch a conventional attack, the ROK army (that’s the South Korean army to you non-military types) would wipe the floor with them. They really don’t need us over there, which is why we are re-stationing most of the combat troops currently located in Korea back here in the states.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:55 pmBen,
no amount of bombs, can stop them from putting together a nuke. You have to be able to put boots on the ground. Unless you feel we should irradiate the entire country. I can assure you that any use of nuclear weapons, will be met by a pretty pissed of China, India, Japan, and Russia. Not to mention will conmpletely alianate whatever parts of the middle east we stil think of as friendly.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pmNorth Korea is estimated by the CIA to have 6 to 12 nuclear devices > that is enough for them to wipe out South Korea and to cripple Japan, but their missiles are not advanced enough to hit the US mainland at present! They could lobe one at Alaska and if lucky kill a bunch of wildlife! Japan should be very afraid, because during WWII they mistreated the Koreans harshly, so the NK would not think twice about blowing Japan to bits, if Pres. Bush attacked them!
July 6th, 2006 at 4:58 pmi must respectfully agree with the above trolls…think progress made bad here…
as for the ‘parking lot’ remark, i heard last night that there will also be 30,000 dead american soldiers, killed by–i think the number was 300,000–missles that the great leader has pointed towards it southern neighbor… just a thought.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:00 pmExcuse me all of you who are saying snowjob would not know this info….wasn’t it reported that he demanded as a condition of his accepting this position he be in on all poilcy meetings? If the Pentagon has said this wouldn’t this be an issue discussed in at least one policy meeting?
He may just be a press secretary, and a bad one at that, but I do not believe for a minute he does not know the Pentagon has said this!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:01 pm15# Whats all this about missiles landing the bomb
North Korea is surrounded by The ocean on two sides they have free shipping anywhere in the world
In the UK 5 Tonnes of hashees is smuggled in everyday from Arabic countries whats to stop a 35 Kilos needed for a bomb being smuggled into your country and placed next to george bushses ranch in Texas - NOTHING - rockets mean nothing
never heard of Rucksack nuclear weapons
July 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#15
And we have Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter to thank for that! I can’t believe that they thought they could trust Kim. Why else is Albright cruising the MSM doing damage control. She even admitted on Meet the Press in October 2004, that they were wrong to trust North Korea. Anyway, I thought Bush was using the UN and diplomacy first here? Isn’t that what you idiots, I mean, liberals want first anyway?
July 6th, 2006 at 5:04 pmJames et al., we weren\’t trying to mislead. The full quotes are presented in the post. Our interpretation is that Snow led reporters to believe that the military would not be limited in its response, despite the Pentagon\’s alternative view. (ie Snow: \”Not that I\’m aware of.\”) We\’ve tempered the headline a bit — from Snow \”claims\” to Snow \”suggests\” — to better reflect our view. Thanks for the comments.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#17-
If he did know, do you really think that the WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY is going to say that we don’t have enough troops to deal with North Korea? Wise up, dude. He is a mouth-piece for the administration. He is not going to contradict the President, or any of the President’s postions. He wouldn’t have the job very long if he started to do that.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:05 pmstill, i have to side with the bush-ass-kissers on this one, as far as think progress goes. the headline of this tag is misleading at best…
we must be fair here; these miscreant war-criminals state enough outright LIES that we mustn’t mis-state what is, arguably, a good answer.
snow’s deflection was not, this time, an outright LIE…
July 6th, 2006 at 5:06 pmNorth Korea has also positioned about 1/2 million troops near the DMZ, so if attacked they would sweep across the border with orders to kill every American soldier in their way in heading to Seoul in the South! If Bush hit them with nukes, then the NK would probably fire half their nukes at South Korea and the rest at Japan!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:06 pmReply to #17:
I’m in complete agreement, jules, but evading the question and feigning ignorance of the topic at hand are different than positively contradicting the Pentagon’s assesment. This is certainly news, but the title should have been: “Tony Snow feigns ignorance of Pentagon assessment of U.S. military capability.”
(Note: The title has rather sneakily changed….instead of :
it’s now:
Closer now, but still misleading, deceptive, and just plain wrong.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pmAgree with previous posters. TP really dropped the ball on this one.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pm#20-
He didn’t “suggest” anything, man. What part of “I’m not aware of” don’t you understand? He is supposed to recall some obscure statement made by the the CJCS? At least he had the intellectual honesty to say that he didn’t know.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:10 pm#9
You exaggerate, my friend, you are over by $4.75.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:11 pmfaiz,
sorry, i think you still have a no-no. this story is headlined more properly as:
Snow Directs Journalists to the Pentagon regarding whether the Iraq Occupation Impacts the US Military Response towards North Korea
and, then you see it is really no story at all…
peace,
james
July 6th, 2006 at 5:12 pmDoesn’t this current little fiasco with N Korea just highlight the fact that our “liberation” of Iraq had little to do with the United States’ security or WMDs and it was really all about oil?
We have a country that’s capable of launching nuclear missles that can hit our shores thumbing their noses at us. Our president has no answer except NOW he wants to try a little diplomacy.
Bush has ruined the respect our country used to get worldwide.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:12 pm23#The US military has about 97,000 soldiers in Asia
South Korea – 40,258 soldiers;
Japan – 40,045 soldiers;
Diego Garcia - 491
The Philippines – About 100 American soldiers are deployed here as part of OEF-P.
Singapore – 196
Thailand – 113
Afloat – 16,601
No wonder Japan wants American trrops out and moved to Guam
July 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pmYes 1/2 million North Koreans would wipe out the 40,258 America soldiers
#23-
Again, 1/2 million troops not withstanding, the ROK army will kick the North Korean Army’s ass any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pmPost 18 Doodle > The US and Japan have basically kept a Naval blockade watch on the NK for years > any of their surface ships would be sunk immediately if a war started > they do supposedly have a couple of old Russian or Chinese submarines, but they can be easily taken out, so hard for them to ship a nuke on a ship to the US > not impossible, but highly unlikely!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:14 pmReply to #26:
While I’m already on the record in this conversation trying to Keep SnowJob from being vilified unnecessarily, let’s not try to make a saint of him, mmkay?
At least he had the intellectual honesty to say that he didn’t know.
As jules pointed out in post #17, Tony Snow he demanded as a condition of his accepting this position he be in on all poilcy meetings. There is no reason whatsoever that he wouldn’t be ‘aware of’ the Pentagon’s assessment.
Sure, ThinkProgress misreported Tony’s lie, but after all the corrections and retractions, it’s still a lie.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#29-
Judging by the “performance” of North Korea’s LongDong missiles, or whatever they are called, during the recent test, Kim would be lucky if he could range Japan. Plus, I think the Navy was sitting out in the Pacific, just waiting for a missle to threaten the continental US, and ready to shoot the piece of crap down and humiliate the Kim. I was praying for something of the sort to happen.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmTP drops the ball AGAIN in their rewrite:
Snow Suggests Iraq Has No Impact On Military Response To North Korea, Contradicting Pentagon Assessment
Previous: Snow Claims Iraq Has No Impact On Military Response To North Korea, Contradicting Pentagon Assessment
I’m as big a Bush fan as I am of bleeding rectal ulcers, but TP has crossed the line here.
And the hell with Tony Snow. He was never a big fact checker…you think the White House would hire someone to discuss actual facts?? Please.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:18 pmPost 30 Doodle > yes if Bush attacked the NK, all 40,000+ of our troops would probably be slain in the first couple days of the war and Seoul in flames too!
Post 31Stupid > like the former South Vietnamese Army, the South Korean forces are pansy troops who would get wiped out fast by the NK soldiers! The war would be extremely lethal to our 40,000 plus troops near the DMZ! In the end the North Korean army would be destroyed, but so would every soldier in the South be slain > both Koreas would be wastelands of death!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#34
Kim is smarter than our president. He is just showing enough “dong” to win this little pissing match.
I believe the N Koreans are more capable of hitting our shores than were are capable of preventing them from doing it.
N Korea is embarassing the hell out of the strongest country in the history of the world.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:25 pmHeh…ThinkProgress chnges the title yet again.
At the time of this post, the title reads:
Much better…but now it completely ignores Snow’s mealy-mouthed denial of any knowledge of the situation, which as jules pointed out in post #17, is as much a lie as stating something in opposition to the Pentagon assessment.
The story here is that Tony Snow is feigning ignorance of a topic he has full knowledge of (at least if he’s showing up for work on regular basis). A lie of omission is still lie.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:26 pmThe headline I see now is, “Pentagon Said Response To North Korea Would Be Hurt By Overstretched U.S. Military.” I missed all those other headlines.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:26 pm#36-
Man, you have no IDEA what the hell you are talking about. Have you even been to Korea? Have you? Ever seen the ROK army in action? They are some of the most disciplined, steady, and competant soldiers I’ve ever seen. Plus, they are equipped with our weaponry, the best in the world. We would have total air superiority from the onset of any hostilities. As for our troops, all US forces have been removed from the DMZ as part of the withdrawl plan. WE WOULD KICK THEIR ASS. Only the Chinese would be able to save them and that, of course, is the scariest part of the scenario.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:28 pmboth Koreas would be wastelands of death!
mmmm, jay, are you trying to make love to me with phrases like that….
kisses,
ann
July 6th, 2006 at 5:28 pmDong 2 missile was test launched on 4th of July with some short range missiles > Dong 2 when perfected would be able to hit all of Japan, but still fall short of hitting the US mainland! Perhaps could hit Hawaii, if they were extremely lucky?! NK also is working on a Dong 3 missile that could hit the West Coast of the United States, but that missile is still on the drawing board, and will take several years to get operational!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:30 pmTrolls- we are getting our asses handed to us by insurgents in Iraq, and you really believe we would be able to handle the 1/2 million (I read one million actually) NK military? You actually believe they would not be fighting like the insurgents? God you are stupid people. No wonder you still have your heads shoved firmly up Bush’s ass!!!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:32 pm#37-
How is it, exactly, that North Korea is “embarrassing the hell out of the strongest country in the history of the world?” Again, let Krazy Kim lauch a missle that even gets remotely close to any US possession. The Navy is waiting.
http://www.breitbart.com/ news/ 2006/ 06/ 22/ 060623001445.r0o3j49z.html
We’ll see who is embarrassed after we shoot down his pathetic missles.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:33 pm(ed. note: The original title of the post caused confusion. We have updated it.)
F**K YOU, Think Progress. The only confusion is on your editorial staff; you updated the title twice because it was blatantantly wrong the first time and misleading the second time.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pm#43-
READ MY POSTING #40. It will answer all your questions. The North Koreans are weak. We (the US) already feeds 1/3 of the population of North Korea. As well as kicking their ass up-and-down the peninsula, we’ll also starve them out. They wouldn’t have a chance.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:37 pmif North Korea has 6-12 Nuclear weapons you can bet your ass one of them is in a canoe on its way to mainland USA right now
July 6th, 2006 at 5:38 pmPost 40 lol > The ROK are pansy troops, but yes the US and South Korea would have air superiority > that is why the NK positioned the main body of their troops near the DMZ to sweep across as fast as possible to capture Seoul! It would be a massive bloodbath on both sides of the DMZ on the first day of the war! In the end millions of civilians on both sides would be killed!
I wrote a bio for President Clinton on Kim once > just to give him an idea of what the guy could do in a war!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:39 pmso they are admitting now that they have overextended our military, making us unable to enter another conflict if we had to? wow…
July 6th, 2006 at 5:43 pmi don’t know…it looks like the great leader has a bunch of stuff that would not BLOW UP REAL GOOD for all you warmongers out there…
July 6th, 2006 at 5:46 pmPost 47 > reason why the CIA estimated 6 to 12 nukes is because of the amount of plutonium taken from their nuclear power plant rods > at maximum 12 nuke devices could be manufactured from it, but if China has shipped them more uranium or plutonium, then they could have more nukes then that eventually! I consider their nukes to be doomsday devices, so unless Bush decides to attack them, then most likely they will never be detonated!
July 6th, 2006 at 5:47 pmI gotta agree with #1
This, to me, is mostly media hype because Korea can not afford war nor are they a threat to the United States, Kim Jong is rattling his saber– more like a faulty swiss knife again. Korea would be swiftly annihilated if they ever did pop a nuke .
The fear factor establishment media is playing up sad little Korea for all it can. I mean think about it, a bale of dope lands on the beach all the time..I mean wouldn’t it be easier to just put a ‘nuklyar’ bomb in a bale of marijuanna and give it to the drug smugglers?
Really, with our porous borders, why the hell would you want to spend all that money on a missile when you can walk across the border with a suitcase nuke?
July 6th, 2006 at 5:57 pm#52
for what its worth, you may want to add taiwan to the list:
July 6th, 2006 at 6:00 pmThinkparanoid might want to stop taking quotes out of context if they want their argument to be taken seriously. Here’s what Gen Meyers said just before:
ANDREWS: Would that be enough for us to have the force size that we presently have in Iraq and have a force scaled to do the job that might need to be done in an Iran or North Korea, or is it insufficient?
MYERS: We evaluate that periodically. And as I said in my opening statement, we can handle the tasks that are outlined in the national defense strategy that this country expects its military to handle.
So, in short, yes. If there is another situation, let’s say on the Korean Peninsula, U.S. forces can respond and deal with that situation.
Just a few minutes later he goes on to say:
But we are tasked, as a military, to be able to do basically two — and we called it in the QDR two “swiftly defeat the efforts of, “ which are two conflicts, taking one conflict to a more enduring outcome, which is what we find ourselves involved in in Iraq today. We can still do that today.
Now, the timeliness of our response might not be totally consistent with what the combatant commander wants and so forth. But we can.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:03 pmHeadline game:
Snow Suggests Iraq Has No Impact On Military Response To North Korea, Contradicting Pentagon Assessment
Snow Claims Iraq Has No Impact On Military Response To North Korea, Contradicting Pentagon Assessment
Pentagon Said Response To North Korea Would Be Hurt By Overstretched U.S. Military
July 6th, 2006 at 6:06 pm- - I think TP is just trying to parrot BushCo’s foreign policy stances.
Werner Von Braun invented rockets when?
Missiles are not new, I am not gonna Kowtow to the bush establishment fear factor media management, if you guys want to run around worrying about Korea, be my guest.
You have much more to fear from the criminal wackos and corrupt politicians inside of this country, America, than from those wackos outside of it.
Do you think Mexico has missiles?
The Mexican Navy announced yesterday that it has bought from Israel two fully operational Aliya class speed boats capable of launching 5 Gabriel missiles each. Naval Captain Arturo Flores Gil told the Mexico City “La Jornada” newspaper that Mexico had paid Israel 60 million dollars for the two naval missile launchers and 10 missiles. Each missile is capable of being outfitted with nuclear warheads.
I can just see all the Goopers read this and start frothing at the mouth for more war.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pmPost 57 Cool > if Mexico gets nukes then Bush will commit suicide, because he thinks Mexico is a wonderful place filled with poor people who are dying to come to the US for low-paid jobs!
July 6th, 2006 at 6:26 pmf Mexico gets nukes then Bush will commit suicide, because he thinks Mexico is a wonderful place filled with poor people who are dying to come to the US for low-paid jobs! -Jay Randal
Captain Arturo Flores Gil said that the highly sophisticated weapons are needed to protect the 360 PEMEX oil rigs in the waters off Campeche.
The Campeche oil fields are the richest in Mexico that produces 83% of the nation’s oil.
Oh well Jay =), so much for those ‘messkans’ as george says, Oil, in Bush/Cheney world, always trounces wonderful low wage earners.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:31 pmTwo words… Pottery Barn… Let alone North Korea would destroy Seoul.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:39 pmPost 59 > who wants to attack the Campeche Oil fields? Only guys who attack other nations for oil are Bush and Cheney, so Mexico will need those 2 ships purchased from Israel > lol.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:39 pm#61, I bet you can’t name one western or American oil company that is producing oil ini Iraq, but you sure like to repeat you’re baseless talking point. Liar.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pmPost 63 > are you a Bush loving fool on here? If so enough said to you > lol.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:48 pmSomeone on Fox News last night pointed out that N. Korea did most of their nuke weapons development while Reagan and Bush I were in office, and Clinton was the only President who talked them into stopping and allowing inspectors in. Under Bush II, the inspectors were kicked out, all monitoring equipment removed, and the weapons program accelerated full throttle.
Maybe blustering and calling names wasn’t the best diplomatic approach? But it sure made Bush’s supporters feel good for a while, didn’t it?
July 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#65, Support your shifting argument with facts. Otherwise you’re ignorant or lying.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pmTP says:
Confusing? Hardly. Try “wrong”, “inaccurate” or “grasping at straws” on for size.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:21 pmIt’s your argument #69. Name the western or American oil companies producing oil and gas in Iraq.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:31 pm#71 - Didn’t they find chemical weapons there? He exaggerated because he’s desperate. What’s TPs excuse?
PS Sen Santorum is a jackass.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:35 pm#74, Chevron is not producing oil and gas in Iraq. The correct answer is Norway’s DNO, Canada’s Heritage Oil and Britain’s Sterling Energy are the companies that are exploring, with DNO actually making a small discovery. I don’t know how they are tied to Bush or Cheney, but maybe you’ll find a way to lie about that, too.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:46 pmChevron is not operating in Iraq. End of argument, liar.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:05 pmBTW, I’ve been in the business for 30 years and have spent time in the middle east. I don’t need google or morons like you to tell me whats going on in the industry.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:08 pmThe world must feel safe and secure that Bush gets his foreign policy “advice” from Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his US Ambassador is John Bolton. The Three Stooges of inept and unprincipled government policy. Bush is Shemp.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:17 pmhttp://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7989
If Chevron isn’t operating there now, I would be really surprised. Why would you setup shop in August of 2003, then leave. Doesn’t make sense, but neither does anything the Bush admin does.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:20 pmThink Progress is really off the deep end here. It seems clear that the implication is that we are stretched too thin in Iraq so we can’t deal with Korea the way we really should be. What the hell is that? Let me get this straight—Think Progress is pissed because if it weren’t for that stupid idiot in the White House tying up our troops in Iraq then we would already be enjoying that well-needed overdue full scale invasion of Korea. I always thought that you lefties wanted all of our troops to come home and pick daisies. How does that help with the situation in Korea?
Of course, you may think that bringing our boys home would be the biggest weapon against Korea. Maybe you think that the sober, rational leadership of Korea would see how a harmless military sitting at home crocheting afghans poses no threat to them and then they can finally lay down their arms and invite us over for a nice rousing game of badminton.
Please, somebody tell me what your plans for the US military would be regarding Korea if we weren’t in Iraq. Please!
July 6th, 2006 at 8:32 pmWhat neither side on this issue seems to understand is that BushCo isn’t after production…they’re after control. It’s not in their best interests to try to get the oil, it’s in their best interests to ensure that the oil stays right where it is…under the sand. Restricting production makes the oil they already own legitimately that much more valuable.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:33 pmWe all know that the White House refuses to listen to any experts. How about Iraq? Anyhow, the BA isn’t going after NK - the real nuke threat - they’re going after Iran, who is 10+ years away from having even a semblance of a nuke.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
July 6th, 2006 at 8:38 pmOur Constitution: Going…going…gone:
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Randy: “And we have Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter to thank for that!â€
July 6th, 2006 at 9:11 pmBush labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as “the axis of evil” reminiscent of WWII language and then attacks the weakest of these countries. Is it any wonder that Iran and North Korea would respond in as bellicose manner as they possibly could to not be the next target? Diplomacy? Bush probably hears it as “diplunacy” and is against it.
#66
I think you are thinking of Wendy Sherman, who currently works for Albright at her consulting firm and worked under Albright while she was Secretary of State. My question is, does she and Albright think most of America are idiots. She was trying to get us to believe that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons under the first Bush administration and stopped because of Albright and Clinton’s negotiation tactics, only to start again under the second Bush administration?
Does anyone here think that makes sense? Kim is not stupid and he may or may not be crazy but the one thing he did not do under the Clinton years is stop building nuclear weapons.
During some recent interviews, I believe Albright has warned us not to make fun of Kim or his country since that will only “egg” them on. I think she also referred to him as being childlike in manner. The truth of the matter is Kim is a spoiled brat and Albright treated him like many liberals treat their children, not really being a parent but rather pacifying them with treats. The one thing we will not do is give him what he wants the most and that is unilateral attention. If military action is to be taken, it will occur with full participation from the member countries of the security council.
Albright and Sherman are pushing their message hard to the MSM, who is just eating it up so they can save their business. Bush is not hanging Clinton out to dry on this one because he is the bigger man although, if roles were reversed, I’m sure Clinton wouldn’t be so kind.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:34 pm#85
Where would North Korea’s nuclear weapon program be today without our help? Wouldn’t North Korea be just another failed communist country like Cuba?
July 6th, 2006 at 9:37 pm#81, dumbass,
July 6th, 2006 at 11:21 pmbuying Iraqi oil exports is not “settiing up shop”. Chevron is not producing oil or natural gas in Iraq. They are not exploring for oil or gas. They do not own the rights to Iraqi oil. They are not receiving royalties for producing oil or gas. In fact, they are selling fuel and lubricants to Iraq. One last time. They do not operate in Iraq.
SNOW: How would you define North Korea?
July 7th, 2006 at 12:04 amWhere would North Korea’s nuclear weapon program be today without our help? Wouldn’t North Korea be just another failed communist country like Cuba?
Comment by Randy — July 6, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
You mean a country with 40 year embargo by US? How would capitalism fail if US had 40 year embargo from other countries? Think before you write, tin man.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:07 amI think this is nitpicking on thinkprogress’s part.
Comment by Rosencrantz — July 6, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
I couldn’t disagree more.
This story is part of the tapestry of lies from the right, and truths from the left, that has permeated this entire debate between the right and the left since the invasion began in 2003. We told them this is what would happen. Can anyone say “Quagmire”?
Many of us knew this would bog down the military and distract from the real war on terror, but they were all so hell bent on going.
But the real story here is the denial and the outright lies by the Bush administration. They insisted year after year the military was not bogged down in Iraq, and could easily handle multiple theatres simultaneously. They were constantly asked this question, particularly in the early years, yet the Bush administration continued to deny that the Military was being streched too thin by the war in Iraq.
Now they finally acknowledge that fact.
I’d say thats a huge story.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:46 amInstead of allowing the Communist regime to implode and meet the fate of its former sponsors in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Bush administration has been exacerbating tensions between North and South, threatening Pyongyang, and doing everything to inflame Korean nationalists on both sides of the DMZ. We should have withdrawn from the Korean peninsula long ago. Instead, as in Japan, we are still guarding the Pacific perimeter of our Asian empire on the pretext of “defending” allies against nonexistent threats – or, rather, against threats largely created and maintained by a foreign policy seeking American hegemony in every region of the world, including North Asia.
What does North Korea want? Pretty much what South Korea wants: to be left alone. Is that really so bad? Yes, the North Korean regime is something out of George Orwell’s worst nightmare. But, as I said above, it can’t last much longer. Surely the advocates of “regime change” will agree that a peaceful Atlas shrugging – as in the case of the German Democratic Republic – would be preferable to a bloody war of “liberation” that could easily go nuclear.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:18 amN. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report
TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.
Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday’s launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.
But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile’s angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.
North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said.
An alternative explanation might be that a missile could accidentally hit land if fired towards Alaska, the report said.
A separate report in the Mainichi Shimbun daily cited U.S. and Japanese government officials as saying a piece of the Taepodong-2 missile fell off immediately after take-off, strengthening the view that the launch was a failure.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:22 amREAD WHAT FREE NEWSPAPERS ( OH MY NEWS )IN KOREA THINK
July 7th, 2006 at 5:58 amThe Friday funnies…
Katherine Harris is back … and she’s hanging out with Alligator Bob in South Florida. No need to add a single solitary thing more. ……
July 7th, 2006 at 9:59 amI want to believe that nukes will never again be used as a weapon–so I can sleep at night.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:18 pmIf that hope proves to be in error,my naivete will be quickly adjusted.