L’il Kim wants attention

March 8, 2009

North Korea claims it is planning to launch a communications satellite for "peaceful purposes." The nations most concerned with North Korean intentions, South Korea, Japan, and the United States, believe this is a cover for another test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. They have good reason for their suspicions: not only has North Korea violated it’s treaty commitments and developed atomic weapons (though the test was pathetic), it has also fired missiles "over the heads" of Japan and may even have aimed for the region around Hawaii.

Given that the possibility of a delusional hill bandit such as Kim Jong Il having both nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is an unpleasant prospect at best, some American figures have suggested destroying North Korea’s missile test site. This is an action I once favored, but now oppose, because the possible North Korea response could devastate the South Korean capital, Seoul, with artillery fire. Japan, meanwhile, is considering deploying its own missile interceptor ships to the waters between the Home Islands and the Korean peninsula.

But, so far, the world’s reaction has been restrained, hoping that Kim will get bored or distracted by his country’s burgeoning cartoon industry (insert jokes as needed). Not yet, however, as Kim has decided the world still isn’t paying enough attention, and thus comes the predictable North Korean threat of war:

North Korea warned Monday that any move to intercept what it calls a satellite launch and what other countries suspect may be a missile test-firing would result in a counterstrike against the countries trying to stop it.

"We will retaliate (over) any act of intercepting our satellite for peaceful purposes with prompt counterstrikes by the most powerful military means," the official Korean Central News Agency quoted a spokesman of the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army as saying.

If countries such as the United States, Japan or South Korea try to intercept the launch, the North Korean military will carry out "a just retaliatory strike operation not only against all the interceptor means involved but against the strongholds" of the countries, it said.

"Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," it added.

And war would mean the utter destruction of that prison camp he calls a country, an idea that I think even Kim understands.

This would be the perfect occasion for playing a YouTube clip of Kim singing "I’m so Ronery" in Team America: World Police, but it’s been pulled for copyright issues. (Killjoys. Phbbbttt ) So, you’ll just have to make do with a picture of Dear Leader:

barack obama capitol

Ooops! Wrong "Dear Leader." Doh

Let’s try that again…


That’s better. Big Grin

(hat tip: Reader Lance)


9/11 was our fault

March 8, 2009

Don’t take my word for it. Just ask Chas Freeman, President Obama’s choice to head the National Intelligence Council:

Americans need to be clear about the consequences of continuing our current counterproductive approaches to security in the Middle East. We have paid heavily and often in treasure for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago, we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home. We are now paying with the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines on battlefields in several regions of the realm of Islam, with more said by our government’s neoeonsenative (I think he meant "neoconservative" –Phineas) mentors to be in prospect.

In other words, the massacre of nearly 3,000 people that day was due to our support for Israel, not aggressive Islam and the jihadist ideology that inspired al Qaeda. According to Freeman, we had it coming. And this man is to be one of the chief intelligence advisers to the President?

LINKS: More from Martin Kramer; Ed Morrissey; Little Green Footballs; I’ve written before about Freeman’s odious opinions.


Technorati tags: , , ,

He’s still trying to vote "present"

March 8, 2009

During the campaign, one of the more embarrassing revelations to come out about then-candidate Obama was how often as an Illinois state senator he dodged an issue by voting "present:" 129 times.  It was pointed out several times that, as president, he wouldn’t be able to vote "present."

That hasn’t stopped him from trying, though.

White House budget director Peter Orszag says the Obama administration isn’t happy with the billions of dollars aimed at lawmakers’ pet projects—also known as earmarks. Obama had campaigned on changing the way such money is appropriated by Congress.

Yet Orszag says Obama doesn’t want to revisit the spending bill Congress put together before he was elected and wants to move on. Next year, according to Orszag, when Obama is fully involved in the next budget from the start, earmarks will be handled differently.

Sorry, Peter. That won’t do. Your boss has been preaching fiscal responsibility (how he can do that without laughing, I don’t know) since the campaign. The spending bill, when it passes, will come to the President for signature — and Barack Obama is the President, not the guy from last year. This bill contains 9,000 earmarks. If Obama signs the bill, that means he approves of them and that he is responsible to see the money is spent. And it will also be the final bullet in the brain of any credibility he has left on the issue of fiscal restraint.

You got the job you wanted, Barack Obama. You’re the president, now. You can’t hide behind "wait until next year."

You can’t vote "present" anymore. Not talking