A loud noise at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. --Knox
When Bush was asked in a Rose Garden news conference this month whether his administration was to blame for North Korea get nuclear weapons while he bogged our troops down in Iraq, "North Korea," Bush pointed out, "had been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time, long before I came into office," he explained.
"Accountability," Bush argued then, "lies with North Korea, not in Washington."
That's the same tack Bush took in his radio address this week as he defensively spelled out his objections to North Korea's apparent test of their nukes; telling Americans and the world how he now intended to respond, and conveniently dodging blame for his five years of inaction while North Korea built bombs.
Bush had his own little summary of the history, as he saw it, behind the development and escalation of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, which began with a predictable feint from responsibility and ended with a "dog ate his homework" defense: "After I came to office (in 2001)," he said, "we discovered that North Korea had been violating this agreement . . . my administration confronted the North Korea regime with this evidence in 2002 . . . the North Koreans subsequently walked away from the 1994 agreement . . . we brought together other nations in the region in an effort to resolve the situation through multilateral diplomacy (ditching unilateral talks) . . . and, unfortunately, North Korea failed to act on its commitment."
From the time Bush ascended to office in 2001, to the end of 2006, Bush sat on his hands as North Korea built up its nuclear arsenal. Bush expected everyone else in the world except his administration to talk to North Korea because he wasn't interested, despite the fact that he has based his entire missile-defense posture around the possibility of a nuclear attack from rogue states like North Korea. Bush invaded and occupied Afghanistan, invaded and occupied Iraq, fostered and facilitated Israel's invasion of Lebanon, yet, failed to directly confront the one nation which is actively threatening the U.S. and the world, and which appears to be in possession of the nuclear means to carry out the threat; unlike the other hapless victims of his Mideast coups.
Bush was asked in 2002 why he was going after Saddam who had no WMDs, and not doing anything to North Korea for walking away from their 1994 agreement. Why, Bush was asked, should we be more worried about Saddam Hussein, who has no nuclear weapons, than Kim Jong-il, who is unstable and does have nuclear weapons?
"First of all," Bush told reporters, "I think it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon."
"Secondly," Bush said, "the international community has been trying to resolve the situation in Iraq through diplomacy for 11 years . . ." Eleven years?! Is that how long North Korea thought they had in 2002 before Bush would get serious? No wonder Kim Jong-il assumed he was free to continue building his arsenal. Bush has been so hot on using our military to defend against these other imagined threats to our security that it would seem a 'slam-dunk' that North Korea would get the military works from the invader-in chief. But, all Bush can manage to do and say as Kim Jong-il plays chicken this time, is to hide behind his "partners in the region" and threaten the regime, again, with "serious repercussions."
Where does Bush see his responsibility in delivering those repercussions he has promised; the repercussions that were due North Korea from the moment he "came to office" and discovered they were in violation? What did he do when he discovered they were in violation of the 1994 bilateral agreement? By his own explanation, Bush waited a year, until 2002, to "confront North Korea with the evidence." He then, simply, allowed North Korea to walk away from the treaty.
Bush's response to the rogue regime was to step back even further from directly confronting Kim Jong-il, and leave that job to China and others as he hid behind his carefully constructed wall of the 'six-party talks' and ducked accountability for allowing the certain violations to continue unabated. Bush is still committed to outsourcing responsibility to the rest of the world for following through on his many ultimatums to North Korea, his swaggering declarations that NK wouldn't be allowed to build their weapons with impunity.
The "serious repercussions" he says North Korea are due will apparently not come in the form of the 'shock and awe' that he insisted Iraq deserved for Saddam's intransigence in making the details of his arsenal available to U.N. inspectors. In the case of North Korea, for Bush, repercussions are to be "negotiated with those in the region." Bush is vowing to "pursue a diplomatic solution" to Kim Jong-il's intransigence. It's in sharp contrast with the fervor and zeal in which encouraged the nation and the world to join him in as he rushed to invade and occupy Iraq.
It shouldn't be seen as so far fetched to suggest that Bush doesn't give a wit at all about North Korea's apparent massing and testing of their nuclear arsenal. Bush waited and watched as Kim Jong-il built up his nuclear arsenal, all the while insisting that we direct the bulk of our defenses to Iraq, where there was no threat at all to our nation. Afghanistan gets only a miserly fraction of the forces Bush put in Iraq as bin-Laden and his accomplices find refuge in the mountains which border Pakistan. How can anyone look at the way Bush has committed our forces and conclude that he's at all serious about actually confronting the most pernicious threats we actually face?
Bush's explanation for his own failure to directly confront North Korea is that Kim Jong-il "failed to act," rather than the more obvious impression he's sending North Korea, and by extension, Iran, of his own unwillingness to act against the defiant regime. The example Bush provided the world in his invasion, occupations, and military muckraking in Iraq and Afghanistan is that our great military power's leader is more content with coveting his conquered prizes, than he is in directly confronting any of the antagonists he's presented as the primary provocateurs of our apocalypse.
Japan has already invited Lockheed's military-industrial warriors to install more of their 'missile defense' boondoggle as a counter to the North Korean aggression. Poland and other Central European nations have, so far, resisted the Bush cabal's hard-sell of similar U.S. 'missile defense' technology on their soil to counter the administration's hyped threat from Iran. Where is the incentive for Bush to actually stop North Korea? He and the industry cronies that he's packed into his Executive offices recognize the political value of maintaining the public perception of a potential threat from North Korea to keeps pressure on Congress at appropriation time.
Why would a "nuclear-free Korean peninsula" need an extensive, costly missile-defense system? Instead of direct diplomacy with North Korea, Iran, and others, Bush is resigning us to these 'cold war' confrontations that allow the antagonists to inflate whatever threat they pose as he zealously inflates our own nation's potential for unleashing devastating, destructive reprisals and pads the bank accounts of his military-industry benefactors. Bush is unconcerned about his own ineptness in confronting the forces massing against our nation, because he's measuring his own importance against the threats that he intends to bequeath to future generations rather than solve.
Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
I add my two cents to Ron's fine article to get the poisons out of my system, and perhaps let right-minded folks recognize that they are far from alone. (Ok, I'm also putting off cleaning up my backyard, but as my philosopher brother says, "Procrastinate now!")
My responses are to parts of Ron's article, as quoted below:
"Accountability," Bush argued then, "lies with North Korea, not in Washington."
- Did any spoiled rich kid with a silver spoon up his ass ever know the meaning of accountability?
".... conveniently dodging blame for his five years of inaction while North Korea built bombs."
- Pointing fingers is all the Republicans have done since I can remember. It truly is their specialty. I'm saddened that so many Democrats are trying to emulate them. As I used to tell my sixth graders, "When you point a finger at someone, four of them point back at you." (I've even noticed that happens to myself on occasion.)
"After I came to office (in 2001)," he said, "we discovered that North Korea had been violating this agreement . . . my administration confronted the North Korea regime with this evidence in 2002 ."
- Further proof that this baboon can't, doesn't, and/or won't read the news. Why, again, did he want to run for president?
"... he has based his entire missile-defense posture around the possibility of a nuclear attack from rogue states like North Korea."
- All while cheerfully blessing India's nuclear know-how, blissfully ignoring the "nucular" weapon blueprints distributed by Pakistan, encouraging nuclear madness by his own example, and overlooking the fact that four box cutters can do about as much damage as a nuke, when willfully and skillfully directed. Not to mention that he's trashed damn near every treaty our country ever entered into.
- "Bush invaded and occupied Afghanistan, invaded and occupied Iraq, fostered and facilitated Israel's invasion of Lebanon..."
- I distinctly recall our Chimp-in-Chief squawking about how we had let Afghanistan down in the past, but solemnly promising we would not do so again.
"First of all," Bush told reporters, "I think it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon."
- And just why did this bonafide lunatic not listen to Scott Ridder, the United Nations, or the untold millions of folks around the world who called bullshit, and took to the streets to protest the Iraq war?
"Bush is vowing to "pursue a diplomatic solution" to Kim Jong-il's intransigence."
- Perhaps if we could give this bozo another half-million or a billion years, he'd come out sounding like Dennis Kucinich. The old dog may have learned part of a new trick after all.
"Afghanistan gets only a miserly fraction of the forces Bush put in Iraq as he zealously inflates our own nation's potential for unleashing devastating, destructive reprisals and pads the bank accounts of his military-industry benefactors."
- Responses as above, but also this: We are herein privy to Bush's Vision and Guiding Light! The primary and exclusive principle under which this robot operates: No billionaire left behind!
"The elders want a solution, and have signaled their exasperation with the younger Bush's crusades."
- All you elders out there need to stop acting like you're dealing with a person, and realize that the immediate goal is how to halt this viral mutation that is wreaking far more destruction than AIDS or Ebola.
"There's no oil in North Korea for Bush to exploit, so he'll make do with spreading around whatever fear..."
Oil, oil, oil. $$$. Fear, fear, fear. Power, power, power. To what end?
Here's an idea! Why don't we turn back the calendar thirty years and contemplate putting a plug in the bathtub of hot water that represents our national energy usage--as opposed to frantically filling our unplugged tub with more hot water, whilst converting our military into mass murders to go get that hot water, so that we might run it down the drain and blow it out our tailpipes?
In addition to conservation and energy efficiency, as Amory Lovins and others have forever advocated, why not also see what happens if we were to direct our national attention to finding replacements for oil? Here's one small example of what I mean:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0VBTKEPAzvA
"By doing nothing more than running his mouth with his hands in his pockets, Bush is free-and-clear now to bomb Iran in order to give North Korea the attention they've earned."
- Running that lipless mouth is all Bush's brain is hard-wired to do, even though nothing ever comes out that anyone can comprehend. I can only imagine what his hands are doing.
Isn't this guy so like Jesus, trying to figure out who to bomb next? I jest of course, but why in the name of Jesus doesn't this alleged Christian nation connect at least two dots here?
Yes, Dear World, this is our Commander-in-chief--the guy who is in control of the wealthiest country and largest military in the world. I can only beg forgiveness and remind you that he really didn't win either election.
And to fellow Americans, I strongly advocate lowering the voting age to, say, 11 or 12, in the confidence and knowledge that those who will inherit this unique and solitary home in space will give us an irrefutable and resounding demand to get past the Dark Ages and into the Age of Reason.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 15, 2006 at 2:52:07 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
1 | 2
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
