Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Friday, April 12, 2013

Ah, Yes . . . Nork Nukes and Obama

Well, well, well.

How the shoe gets on the other foot.

According to the Christian Science Monitor (h/t Drudge) it appears that the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has concluded that the repellent North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un has the ability to put nuclear warheads on a missile. The DIA, of course, also had concluded, along with the CIA and just about every other intelligence agency in the world, that the repellent Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons.

Given how George Bush was vilified for having "lied" to us all about Saddam's weapons, can we assume that the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Hollywood, etc., will now begin to vilify Obama for the same Big Lie about Little Kim?

The situation on the Korean peninsula presents so many ironies that it is hard to list them all. For one, we will now see how Obama and Kerry deal with a "nuclear threat." We will also see that they must rely precisely on the weapon systems that they both so long opposed to defend us from Little Kim's Big Bomb.

This should be fascinating.

I await the Michael Moore movie.


  1. Defend us? They will bend over backward to sell us out, and cheaply!

  2. Somehow I can picture the pResident messing his trousers should the NORKS actually do something except shout out at cameras and rattle sabers. As for Kerry, I can imagine that the first thing he would do would be to rush around looking for someone to surrender to.

    We are NOT in good hands at the moment.

  3. Waitaminnit! ". . .see how Obama and Kerry deal with a nuclear threat. . ." Please don't tell me you expect either one of those political animals to "deal with" anything. I predict they not only will NOT deal with it, their Departments of State and Defense will bring out the PC machines and everyone will circle up, hold hands, and sing Kumbayah. This is not a "deal with" government. Can, meet road.

  4. The word is "appease".

  5. NOT saying, it cannot be - but I would suggest we not get our panties all wadded up - yet.

    "Rep. Doug Lamborn read aloud what he said was an unclassified paragraph from a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report that was supplied to some members of Congress. The reading seemed to take Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by surprise, who said he hadn't seen the report and declined to answer questions about it."

    This same article states the DIA report was released in March. Color me just the least bit skeptical anything DIA released so recently has made it to the leakiest building on the planet.



  6. "can we assume that the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Hollywood, etc., will now begin to vilify Obama for the same Big Lie about Little Kim?"

    I think we can back-track to Benghazi for that answer.
    Men died.
    Obama lied.
    Hillary cried.

    And the MSM complied.

  7. Watch as the White House desperately tries to put the blame on someone, anyone, for:

    1. Not knowing about this
    2. Not doing something about this before.

    Is it too late to say its Bush's fault?

    1. It doesn't appear to ever be too late to blame Bush for this admin

    2. Jib? Only now saw this [from Dip's site].

      jib April 11, 2013 at 10:39 PM
      posted a link on NK on the post about NK.

      I looked to where I thought you meant, couldn't find anything then went here:


      I will read your link Jib - I just need to know where to find it.


    3. Anonymous, don't you know by now that the thing down on the ranch in Crawford, Texas is just a cleverly designed automaton? The real Bush is trotting the globe whispering in Kim Jong-eun'd ears "let's see what kind of trouble you can make for Obie", and telling the Libyan Islamicists, "Let's see what happens when you shoot one of our dips"--to say nothing of sneaking into the treasury every night to ratchet up debt when Democrats in Congress and the Mighty O are trying to lower them.

    4. ha Arkie was the last comment on the Pizza post by our host. anyhow They have the ability

    5. Thanks Jib,

      For whatever reason I've only in the past went back a single post from our host - my mistake. I'm thinking we're not in what I'd call "basic disagreement" - in that I figure the Norkies to have the requisite knowledge ability but I mainly question their technologically precise manufacturing ability.

      But what I'm getting at is not in any way a "basic" disagreement - rather just a technical thing.

      The latest Norkie test was kinda difficult to guage 'success' from because (so far as I'm aware) the levels of what we'd expect to release atmospherically, were never detected. That tends me to figure whatever they tested was cannon-initiated as opposed to ring-sequenced. "Cannon-initiated" atomic/nuclear reactions are a little bit too heavy from what "we know" of the Norkies ICBM lift rocketry.

      Of course that's no guarentee they do not have the ability - all that means is it's not been demonstrated yet. The Norkies have demonstrated they can get a rocket up to orbital altitude but that doesn't mean much without the ability to demonstrate a re-entry [on target] capability.

      Yet - NK does have some severe challenges where testing in a "geographic sense" means much. The peninsula afterall isn't either say, the Bikini Atoll or even the width of White Sands. And telemetry is of course problematic.

      I AM NOT disagreeing with you Jib.


  8. I reckon to get to the quick - it'd be most accurate to call it Clinton's fault. That's when the plutonium reactor got set in motion.

    Thing is though ... given the way we prefer our "nowadays wars" to be fought ... what options does anybody have to, put on the table?

    41 pages here - says 64 but 23 are citations & footnotes:



  9. Earlier today it it struck me:

    Surrender. That is the best strategy. Before you giggle, think about it. It makes sense. Little Kimmy would not have a clue what to do.

    Obama needs to show the world we are no longer the ‘bully’ of the world, forcing little countries to starve or convert to capitalism. America needs to come down a notch. Just surrender.

    Let Little Kim take over and solve our unemployment problem with work gangs and gulags! Think how quickly the illegal aliens would flee once the occupiers landed!

    The first problem Little Kim could solve is the monetary crisis. As Victor, he would be obliged to rebuild our nation! Free homes for everyone! Free medicine! A state run media! Mandatory education for all!

    Just think of the 99% election turnouts! We would never have to debate gun control legislation! PETA would never have to worry about stray cats and dogs ever again! The environmentalists would be so pleased to see everyone become vegans and eating grass seed.

    While we are at it, we might as well surrender to the Taliban, too. Think of the cool houses of worship we could build.

    What would be the difference from what we have now? At least we avoid nuclear war.


    1. Any truth in the rumour that the entire DOD is being scrapped?

      The big O will use the dollars for something or another and will replace the DOD with an answer machine. When anyone phones up to declare war, the pre recorded message will say "We surrender".

      Problem solved?

      Phil B

    2. Jacque Francois Kerry, is Fwench, no? Perfect! Let the surrendering begin!

    3. I see a problem with this: as soon as the NorKs land in LA, a bunch of South Korean-origin shopkeepers will get out the guns they bought to protect themselves in riots and shoot the first of their old enemies to land.

  10. While I've yet to read this link I did notice this one:

    "While we are at it, we might as well surrender to the Taliban, too. Think of the cool houses of worship we could build."

    and was put in mind of something Michael Yon wrote years ago.

    "The Taliban know that one day we will return home - the Taliban already are home."


  11. The NYSlimes and WashCompost won't vilify the O for claiming the NorKs have Nukes. After all, a Democratic President deserves every benefit of the doubt, cannot possibly have a hidden agenda, and only has the security of right and justice in mind. If, perchance, there's a Korean War II ending with RoK, American, allied, or some combination thereof discovering a warehouse full of nuclear duds, our major media will say that all the sacrifice was worth it, even if for nothing but to "play it safe". And, surely the Chinese who own the Clintons won't make trouble for us should we ride to the RoK's rescue again!

    1. Whether or not a Democrat President might have as you say Kepha, an agenda you reckon any body else who manages to "scrounge up" the necessary funds to mount a successful campaign will not?

      And so what to do? Call a special election where we'll all, each and everyone dip our index fingers in indelible purple ink - well ... that's been done and here we are.

      What we (by "we" I mean us not allowing our Washington DC Panjandrums to decide who's not/acceptable) and then actually take the Electoral College.

      But, generally speaking, my reading of American History indicates the Pendulum swings. Andrew Jackson, Honest Abe, the former Union-Leader of Hollywood's Screen-Actor's Guild switching Party affiliation is somewhat more dependent on the Electorate-at-Large realizing they've been had than anything "the media" has ever managed to narrate.

      Am I as Prescient as say Karl Rove? Or for that matter Ann Coulter's expositing "The Bradley Effect"? For that matter, the whole of FOX' lineup, and for good effect Rush?

      I dunno to tell the truth.

      But I have this feeling History is gonna do again something like Mark Twain appears to've had a pretty good handle on.

      And then we won't be Pinko/Commie/Socialist/Ivy League Elitests (disregarding of course the Harvard Republican MBAs)/Riffraffs - until the next time the Pendulum swings.

      That is unless, Kim Jong Eun nukes us before Obama reaches his term-limit.


  12. And, won't it be fun! Whereas Sodom Insane was relatively isolated internationally, the O will have to face a DPRK that is backed to the hilt by the selfsame people who've been stealing our technology, owning us up to the ears thanks to our national debt, and who are able to field a couple million soldiers at a moment's notice.

    1. So then. Reckon we need take the fall-back technique of doing "defense supplementals" with those very same creditors?

      I'd say (but I'm not so well-accoutered) I'm all ears!


  13. I could've gone days longer without anyone mentioning that repellent sack. Whichever one you think I'm referring to, you're right.

  14. Someone from the O Whitehouse said, "but they haven't demonstrated that they can put a nuke on a missle." As if to make us feel better.

    Probably gets burned many times at home trying to figure out if stove is hot.

  15. And when they do (IF they do -- why not just slip a few into containers bound for Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans and New York?) that WH official will say "well they demonstrated they can put a nuke on a missile, but they only hit one city with it.

    1. Worse yet, they'll get one on a container ship and manage to shoot it to high altitude where it explodes. EMP and so long electronics and electricity.

  16. Odd, as I recall, the reports were that Iraq was seeking materials and and equipment for a nuclear program, not that they had nuclear weapons. My memory must be terrible because I remember reports claiming that IRAQ WMD's were probably outdated chemical weapons that could be somewhat degraded but might still be very effective and that they were attempting to manufacture and hide precursors to make more such chemical weapons quickly and easily. Guess I'm getting senile, since so many articles refer to "the claim that Sadam had nuclear weapons."