Back to Chinese Checkers

Back to Chinese Checkers

by Mustang

A few interesting developments among the so-called China watchers.  There is nothing for you to do about this, of course, but I thought it would provide at least some amusement.  So, there is this fellow named Sandeep Dhawan who writes advice to the US State Department suggesting what they ought to do about China.  I’m sure the State Department appreciates this advice — the Lord knows if anyone needed advice, it’s the US State Department.  Sandeep’s bona fides include the fact that he’s a former commander in the Indian navy.  I found this curious, so I did a few minutes of G-searching and could not find one single incident where the Indian Navy ever distinguished itself in a combat role at sea.  Well, it may not matter. 

Russia India and ChinaMeeting between leaders of Russia, India and China • President of Russia

Sandeep is concerned because, as the United States withdraws from its foreign outposts, China is moving in to “fill up the vacuum.”  Moreover, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s latest visit to the Middle East seems to indicate (to Sandeep) that China is definitely “moving in.”  Now, maybe it’s just me, but … so what?  Yi’s vow to “work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman to “help protect their core interests against foreign interference” doesn’t bother me in the least.  More to the point, if Iran invaded Saudi Arabia tonight at midnight, I couldn’t care less.  Remember, I have long advocated that the solution to the petty tyrants in the Middle East is to convince the Saudis that the Iranians are good to eat.  Sorry, my friends, but I don’t care if China spends all of its silver taels on Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, Eritrea, or on Huey, Dewey, and Louie.  In fact, I think China should spend all their money in the Middle East.  We American taxpayers need a break.

Note:  I wonder if China realizes that all those countries hate each other almost as much as they hate us?

What does concern me, however, is that given America’s hunger for Chinese-made plastic bowls, it will be OUR spending at Wal-Mart that will actually fund China’s mischief in the Middle East.  Painfully, we all know that the average female shopper at Wal-Mart would trade in her first born son for a set of eight plastic storage bowls if they come in multiple colors.  Yeah, patriotism is important, so long as it doesn’t interfere in plastic storage ware.

Meanwhile, Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi are forming a mutual support arrangement.  They didn’t do this when Trump was president, of course … they know what a war hungry maniac Trump was.  But now that Joe Biden’s in the White House … well, off come the gloves.  Truly, this IS the danger of electing a nitwit to the presidency, and a former prostitute as his Vice … do you think anyone in the old country will respect America’s leadership, or will they take advantage of the opportunities handed to them by the American voter?

Note:  I don’t know for a fact that Kamala Harris ever was a prostitute, but that’s what Peter, who comments here, said — and it may all boil down to how one defines prostitution, but for the record I trust Peter, and this should go a long way toward reducing what I owe him.

But let’s be optimistic … even assuming that China and Russia “divide the world” among them, so what?  At some point in the future, the American dim-bulbs who voted for Biden will be called away and we’ll end up with a president with cajones.  After this new president nukes everyone one who is friends with China or Russia, the world will belong to us.  Then we can start fighting among ourselves, which is what we like to do almost better than anything (except Wal-Mart shopping).

Mustang’s take on the post Chinese checkers in the Middle East: Play or Perish

Omar tells Sanders supporters, he will ‘fight against western imperialism’

 

Rep. Ilhan Omar says she is excited Sen. Bernie Sanders will “fight against western imperialism.”

“I am beyond honored and excited for a president that will fight against western imperialism and fight for a just world,” Omar said during a Sanders campaign rally in Minneapolis.

 

Omar could only praise comrade Sanders, who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. We are to forget the Soviet Union wasn’t on everyone’s bucket list as a travel destination. This at the height of the cold war. That he is even polling a number tells us what has happened to our educational system.

“The fight for human rights is undeniable. And when we recognize injustices of the past and present,” Omar said. “Whether it is genocide against Jewish people, Armenians or Rwandans or Bosnians or Native Americans or more. We realize that that recognition isn’t about punishing our political foes, but leading within a moral obligation.”

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

Welcome readers from Whatfinger News.

For the best in conservative news push the button.

 

 

 

 

Senator Feinstein caught talking to Iran on unsecure IPhone

If we thought the latest kerfuffle over Kerry’s mixing into foreign policy regarding Iran recently was a Logan problem, add the concept of Feinstein walking around congress on an unsecured line talking on her IPhone to Iranian Prime Minister Zarif.

The same Zarif that Kerry is so involved with. Keep in mind, Kerry’s daughter Vanessa is married to an Iranian national and physician. His best man at the ceremony was the son of Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. Zarif was also Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

First just for old times sake:

Kerry and his Iranian in-law relatives. Could he be black mailed?

But back to the business at hand. A portion of the take down by Mark Levin that is well worth hearing the full thing.

LevinTV host Mark Levin called out the hypocrisy of the Democrats after Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was caught on the phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif earlier Thursday, and the media said nothing.

“He’s the foreign minister to an enemy state that seeks to attack American military personnel in the Middle East, that seeks to put nuclear warheads on ICBMs so they can reach the United States. It is a terrorist regime, an Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran, that has killed Americans, that funds Hezbollah to kill Americans, that funds Hamas to kill, and is a threat to our national security, obviously,” Levin said. “What in the hell is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing talking on an iPhone around the Capitol to Javad Zarif?”

“What is it with these Democrats fronting for this Islamo-Nazi regime that wants to kill Americans and Jews in Israel? You’ve got Frankenfeinstein, you’ve got … John Kerry — or the real Frankenstein — giving aid and comfort to the enemy! It’s not enough that they released $150 billion to this regime; now they’re giving it advice, against the president of the United States. You want to talk about the Logan Act? You want to talk about collusion?”

Levin pointed out that the media, of course, has said nothing about Feinstein’s phone call.

“Don Trump Jr. has a meeting with a couple of Russians, meeting turns out to nothing, and it’s the crime of the century. Except Mueller says it’s not, but the media says it is. You have Dianne Frankenfeinstein on her damn cell phone with the foreign minister of Iran! Anybody want to know what they discussed? ‘No, no, that’s Dianne, we like her,’” Levin said.   H/T: Blazing Press

 

The Error of Our Ways

 

 

The Error of Our Ways

 

by Mustang

At the end of World War II, Harry S. Truman was looking for ways to switch the United States from its war-time economy to one better suited to a society that wanted —and needed peace.  Unhappily, the President’s cost-cutting measures involved a one-third reduction of the military services: Army, Navy, and Marines.  Washington, D. C. was a busy place between 1945-1950:

  • World War II veterans were expeditiously discharged
  • The Department of War was transformed into the Department of Defense.
  • The Navy Department was rolled into DoD.
  • The Army-Air Force became the United States Air Force.

New Jersey mothballed 1948

Missions and structure for all services was under review.  Within the naval establishment, one-third of the Navy’s ships were moth-balled.  In the Army and Marines, infantry battalions were forced to give up one rifle company, which meant that battalions had no combat reserve; no way to rotate company off the front lines; no way to form the battle area in depth.

In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson produced a study of Sino-American relations.  Officially, this document was titled United States Relations with China with Special Reference to the Period 1944-1949. Its short title was simply, the China White Paper.  In over 1,000 pages, Acheson explained that America’s intervention in China was doomed to failure.  Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong was overjoyed to hear this news.

Then, on 12thJanuary 1950, Secretary Acheson gave an address before the National Press Club.  In his discussion of the all-important US Defense Perimeter, he neglected to include the Korean Peninsula and Formosa as places the United States was prepared to defend.  North Korean leader Kim Il-sung immediately conferred with the Soviet Union.  Would the USSR back him in reunifying the Korean peninsula?

This wasn’t the first time where America’s diplomatic incompetence caused harm to the American people —nor was it the last.

Thanks to Truman’s cost cutting and Acheson’s incompetence, war once more turned its horrid face toward America in June 1950; worse, America was unprepared to fight it.  There was no money for training, munitions for live fire exercises, fuel for military aircraft, or replacement parts for vehicles.  Military skills are perishable.  Pilots who are limited in their flight hours lose their edge in the cockpit.  Infantry units that do not regularly train with artillery and armored units lose their efficiency.  So, it should not have surprised anyone in July 1950 when the US Army’s first act in the Korean War was full-scale retreat to Pusan in southeast South Korea.  It was a very bad situation; and America’s army was in real danger of being pushed into the Sea of Japan.

Well, we know why America was unprepared for the Korean War in 1950: Truman was a Democrat and the Secretary of Defense was his shill.  But why did Truman pursue a deadly, costly, and static strategy for three years?  The effect of this muddleheaded policy was the loss of 38,000 American lives.  Did we learn anything?

Apparently not … because the US repeated this foolishness during the Viet Nam War —a conflict we never have entered in the first place.  Washington insiders tried time and again to convince President Eisenhower to send combat troops to Viet Nam in the mid-1950s; beyond providing US funds, however, Eisenhower refused to take that bait.  Under Democrat Lyndon Johnson, America gave up another 58,000 lives.

In my mind, the lessons from both of these conflicts are self-evident—and yet, George Bush and Barack Obama managed to involve and keep us in conflicts that have nothing whatever to do with “national defense.”  I keep asking, how is going to war in the Middle East in our nation’s best interests?  What are those interests, exactly?

I believe that the American people have a right to know what our interests are BEFORE getting involved in foreign entanglements … something more than telling us that it’s in our national interest.  I also think that whenever a decision is made to go to war, then our government is obliged to prosecute it with unmatched ruthlessness.  If we are going to war, then we must beat the enemy so bad that he won’t consider another war for ten more generations —and for the sake of God, get the damn thing over with.  No more pussyfooting around with the lives of our service men and women.  Short wars, if you have to fight them, are better than protracted wars.  Americans hate going more than four quarters in any contest.

If Democrats were serious about “national defense,” then why are we importing terrorist-refugees into the United States to wreak havoc here at home? Where is the sense in having porous borders where very bad people can walk through at their leisure?  Isn’t Congress and the administrative departments and agencies obliged to “defend” Americans here at home?  Note: Republicans could have fixed the southern border issue but didn’t.  Now they’re criticizing Democrats for doing nothing.  Our entire congressional structure does “nothing.”

We Americans —or at least the governments we elect— still have not learned any important lessons about our enemies.  Otherwise, we wouldn’t have been tiptoeing around the extremist issue since the early 1990s.  Rather than addressing the problem directly, our government pursues a failed static policy. How long have we been in Afghanistan? Folks, America needs a reset.

  • Let us resolve to avoid involving ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations.  If we do not want Russia meddling in our political affairs, then we should refrain from meddling in their elections (Bill Clinton).
  • Let’s stop pretending that we understand the Islamic mindset.  We don’t.
  • Let us stop pretending that our diplomats understand anything or are clever; if anything, our diplomats are incompetent or criminally malfeasant.
  • Let us be fair and consistent in our dealings with the extremist mentality.  They can do as they wish in their own back yards —but God have mercy should they ever attack, assault, or give menacing looks toward any American citizen.  Our resolve should be to terminate with extreme prejudice anyone who threatens the safety of the American people, but more than this, we should be resolved to take out the entire kitchen staff, as well.  If the extremists (foreign or domestic) do not stop this nonsense, our intention should be to completely eradicate them: lay down such waste on their homeland that no human being will be able to live there for another ten generations (or until the year 2319).

This is how you bring peace and prosperity to America.  Why have we not learned from the error of our ways?

‘The Final Year’ film exposes Obama team and their foreign policy naivety

 

 

How about a film review for a sleepy Saturday on a holiday weekend? I had heard that this documentary was in the works months ago. That being following around the Obama team the last year of his administration. Apparently it is about to hit HBO, however there has been a limited screen showing. I read they cover Samantha Power and her coming to terms with their loss. I for one am looking forward to it. I’ll throw in a couple of clips. Ben Rhodes is a laugher.

Quoting Weasel Zippers: This is by turns hilarious, yet also incredibly sad to think that this is the flummoxed administration we were saddled with for 8 years.

Free Beacon:

Ben Rhodes sputters incoherently at the end of “The Final Year,” the documentary about former President Barack Obama’s foreign policy team and their diplomatic efforts throughout 2016.

He’s rendered speechless by an event he says wasn’t going to happen during the film: The election of Donald Trump.

Yet throughout the documentary, he’s also flummoxed by finding out Vladimir Putin isn’t out to promote what the U.S. thinks Russia’s interests are, the media’s response to his pronouncement that they were stupid rubes suckered into promoting the Iran nuclear deal, people who think climate change isn’t a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism, and at one point, getting into the back seat of a van.

Keep reading…

Quoting the New York Post

In a moment of woeful irony in the Obama-administration documentary “The Final Year,” UN Ambassador Samantha Power travels to Cameroon to offer photo-op comfort to families terrorized by Boko Haram — only to have her motorcade kill a 7-year-old boy.

Greg Barker, the director of this fan film, does his best to downplay the accident: It is discussed while we watch a clip of Power’s convoy moving at a crawl when in fact it was reportedly traveling at over 60 miles an hour when it struck the boy.

But to understand why Rhodes and Obama are so pleased with their foreign policy, you have to understand the way they think. The documentary is revealing about that.

Naïvety, meet arrogance. These were the guiding forces behind the Rhodes-Obama foreign policy. The arrogance came in thinking that all previous administrations were too thick to come up with this awesome idea Rhodes had: Military force is bad.

Snip…

….but it’s Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes who has the most amusing reaction to Donald Trump’s victory.

Asked whether a Trump administration might endanger his accomplishments, he says, “I’ve never really considered that.” So what does the speechwriter and former aspiring novelist have to say when Trump wins? “I mean, uh, I can’t even [long pause] I can’t, I ca - - [long pause] I mean I, I can’t, I can’t, I can’t put it into words. I don’t know what the words are.”

THE FINAL YEAR Trailer #1 NEW (2018) Barack Obama Documentary Movie

 

The Rough ‘Final Year’ of Ben Rhodes

Flashback – John Kerry back to his old tricks of undermining State policy

 

For my flashback Saturday, or “whatever happened to” I didn’t have to go far today. Kerry breeches into the news, once more the traitor he has always been. Doing all he can to make sure his own idiotic Iranian deal stays in place by visiting the major principles. Meeting with Iranian Prime Minister Zarif whose son was best man at his daughter’s wedding.  I will get to that, but first some of the best from the past.

 

“I am proud of the Iranian-Americans in my own family, and grateful for how they have enriched my life,” Kerry said in the official statement.

Kerry’s daughter Vanessa is married to an Iranian national and physician. Who was best man at the ceremony? The son of Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Zarif was also and Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

Kerry also said he was “strongly committed to resolving” the differences between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, “to the mutual benefit of both of our people.”

 

Kerry and his Iranian in-law relatives. Could he be black mailed?

Among Sen. John Kerry’s top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So he didn’t need to have an Iranian-American family member to believe that the United States should forge direct relations with the Islamic Republic or ease U.S. pressure on the regime.

John Kerry and Syria

The Washington Free Beacon in an article titled “An Affair to Remember: John Kerry Hearts Bashar al-Assad” called Kerry the Syrian dictator’s “highest-ranking apologist in American politics”:

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003.

…It wasn’t so long ago that Kerry made repeated pilgrimage to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011.

He famously used the adjective “generous” to describe Assad, as the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens recalled in a column:

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” (This is the man who is our secretary of state, and mastermind of the Iran nuclear deal.)

As Michael Rubin recently wrote in Commentary Magazine, Kerry’s staffers described “their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he returned to Washington referring to Bashar as ‘my dear friend.’”

The National Review detailed more about Kerry’s positive impression of Assad (2007):

After a “long and comprehensive” meeting with Assad in April of that year, Kerry described it as “a very positive discussion.” A month later, Kerry was back in Syria. His spokesman, insisting that “Syria can play a critical role in bringing peace and stability if it makes the strategic decision to do so,” asserted that Kerry had “emerged as one of the primary American interlocutors with the Syrian government.” Despite the senator’s interlocutions, Assad, it appears, has made the wrong “strategic decision.”

 

Now the latest from our traitor:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry is actively working to keep the Iran nuclear deal in place as U.S. weighs the future of the deal, according to a new report.

Kerry, who served as the nation’s top diplomat under former President Barack Obama, was an instrumental leader in the development of the 2015 Iran deal, which put Iran’s nuclear program on ice in exchange for relief from crippling sanctions.

The Boston Globe reports Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to examine how to preserve the deal.

Additionally, he has met and spoken with several European officials on the matter, including German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and French President Emmanuel Macron.

More at Washington Examiner

Fauxahontas Warren spent weekend in China trying to cause heap big trouble

 

So Warren wants to cause heap big trouble for Trump if she can apparently, and undermine Trump’s efforts on the eve of tense negotiations with North Korea. She spent three days blowing smoke in China as well as trying to make trouble in South Korea and Japan. All on on our dime apparently. She is not the first to make a magical mystery tour in the region. Hillary of course made her “land mark” landing in India as we all know, and this: 

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is in China for Easter weekend, speaking with dignitaries in Beijing about her reservations regarding President Trump’s actions on the world stage and collective concerns about Sino-American trade relations.

Warren, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a 2020 Trump opponent, talked trade policy with Vice Premier Liu He, Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and another Chinese official named Yang Jiechi, according to Reuters.

“This has been a chaotic foreign policy in the region, and that makes it hard to keep the allies that we need to accomplish our objectives closely stitched in,” Warren said.

She reportedly accused Trump of trying to “take the legs out from underneath [the American] diplomatic corps,” which “Fox & Friends” discussed may have been a reference to the president’s firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

“You can’t but help see this through a political prism,” Griff Jenkins said. “She is trying to go overseas and undermine our significant and very important negotiations.”

More at Fox News

Trump has these top Democrats who voted for the border wall to thank

Who would have thought we have so many Dems to thank so that Trump can go ahead with that big beautiful wall down Mexico way. These are the folks who voted “aye” in 2006 and still had some common sense.

President Donald Trump will be able to order the construction of a wall on the Mexico border Wednesday with the stroke of a pen, because of a 2006 law passed with the help of Democrats including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

If Trump and Republicans follow through, a number of top Democrats will find they inadvertently handed Trump the border wall they now oppose. Their only option to block the construction would be to shut down the government over the matter by blocking the spending bill, a strategy they have consistently mocked and derided Republicans for using in the past.

In addition to then Sens. Obama, Biden and Clinton, 64 House Democrats and 23 Senate Democrats voted for the wall in 2006. Many of them are still in Congress, including newly-established Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Other Democrats in the Senate who voted for the wall in 2006 are Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sherrod Brown (OH — then in the House), Tom Carper (DE), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Ron Wyden (OR).

There are also a number of Democrat representatives still in the House who voted for the bill: Sanford Bishop (GA), Corrine Brown (FL), Michael Capuano (MA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Peter DeFazio (OR), Steve Israel (NY), Ron Kind (WI), Daniel Lipinski (IL), Stephen Lynch (MA), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ), Collin Peterson (MN), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Tim Ryan (OH), and Adam Smith (WA).

Former Democrat Rep. Barney Frank and now-disgraced former Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner also voted for the bill. Read more: Libertarian Republic

wall

H/T:Iowadawg

Ted Kennedy secretly asked the Soviets to be involved in the 1984 election

We have been mixed up with the Russians and elections before this latest kerfuffle. It would be great if the media would be an honest broker and discuss past actions. A couple of weeks ago I posted Bill Clinton meddled in Russian Election.

In 1996 US govt interfered in Russia’s election so blatantly it was boasted of on the cover of Time magazine. .

putin2

And let’s look at what Senator Ted Kennedy had in mind.

If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan.

kennedy-brezhnev That’s no exaggeration.According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

You can read the full KGB memo detailing Kennedy’s secret letter and request for electoral intervention here.

More The Federalist

Thank Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter giving North Korea the bomb,

North Korea’s boast that it just detonated its first hydrogen bomb met instant doubts from the White House and arms experts. If they’re right, Pyongyang “only” has plain-old atomic bombs.

What a . . . relief? For all this, thank Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. North Korea couldn’t have done it without their gullibility.

Back in 1994, President Clinton prepared to confront North Korea over CIA reports it had built nuclear warheads and its subsequent threats to engulf Japan and South Korea in “a sea of fire.”

Enter self-appointed peacemaker Carter: The ex-prez scurried off to Pyongyang and negotiated a sellout deal that gave North Korea two new reactors and $5 billion in aid in return for a promise to quit seeking nukes.

Clinton embraced this appeasement as achieving “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula” — with compliance verified by international inspectors. Carter wound up winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his dubious efforts.

But in 2002, the North Koreans ’fessed up: They’d begun violating the accord on Day One. Four years later, Pyongyang detonated its first nuke. More at the New York Post

Speech by Bill Clinton on 21 October 1994 on how the world is a safer place based on the “good deal” with North Korea, preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons. 
On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test.

Barack Obama has just made the same speech regarding Iran.

Fooled once again. (Partial notes from clip included at bottom of clip) Once again the media is complicit in the false reality of the situation.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton agreed to a deal with North Korea aimed at curbing their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, an agreement which the networks at the time hailed as a sign that “the Cold War is really over.”

Under the 1994 framework, which North Korea eventually violated, the U.S. helped the rogue regime build a new nuclear reactor that would not be capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium in exchange for international access to its nuclear facilities, although the United States caved and the inspections would not start for several years.

Agreeing to the inspections was the major concession made by North Korea. Agreeing to delay the inspections by several years was the major concession made by the U.S. But beyond the details, North Korea seems to have made a fundamental decision that the Cold War is really over.

ABC’s Peter Jennings parroted Clinton’s prediction that the deal “will prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear weapon,” while Pentagon correspondent John McWethy downplayed the significance of a delay in inspecting their nuclear facilities:

Crucial inspections are being delayed five years while the rest of the deal is implemented. American officials say the delay is a small price to pay for getting North Korea to shut down its entire nuclear program.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell promoted the details of the agreement, even as she conceded that North Korea would get to keep its already developed nuclear bomb:

But Kim Jung Il’s regime gets to keep what intelligence experts believe it already has, at least one bomb. And it does not have to permit inspection to nuclear waste sites for 5 years.

Clinton’s 1994 deal also failed to achieve the goal of preventing the nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon, with estimates that North Korea has between 12 and 27 such weapons, and its leadership now claims it has the technology to “miniaturize nuclear weapons.”

%d bloggers like this: