Wednesday, October 11, 2006

You take the high road and we'll take the low road

Just One Minute contrasts Jimmy Carter's history of how he stopped North Korea's bomb with a New York Times account of a second nuclear program which Mr. Carter's efforts left wholly unaffected. Former President Carter described how he stopped Kim Jong Il in his tracks in an op-ed in the New York Times:

Carter claims he stops the bomb

Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. ... But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.

North Korea starts a second, uranium program after Carter leaves

But if Carter prevented North Korea's plutonium path to the bomb, after Jimmy Carter's departure, North Korea began exploring a second, uranium-based route to an atomic weapon. The New York Times picks up the tale from where former President Carter's trip ends.

Under an agreement Mr. Clinton struck with North Korea in 1994, the North agreed to "freeze" its production of plutonium at its main nuclear plant at Yongbyon, in return for energy aid. North Korea abided by the freeze. But starting around 1997, the North Koreans took steps to start a second, secret nuclear program, one based on enriching uranium. South Korean and American intelligence agencies did not find conclusive evidence of that program until the summer of 2002, and that fall the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans with its evidence.

The UN attempts to stop the uranium program -- unsuccessfully

When this secret uranium enrichment program came to the attention of the UN's IAEA, they categorically warned North Korea against it. The IAEA's own website documents what happened next:

In a speech in Tokyo 9 December [2002], IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to "re-think" its position and cooperate fully with Agency inspectors to verify its nuclear programme. He further called upon all States to conclude safeguards agreements with the Agency that enable credible verification of both declared and undeclared nuclear material and activities. The Director General addressed the International Conference on the Wider Adherence to Strengthened IAEA Safeguards, which opened today in Tokyo. The meeting is hosted by the Government of Japan and concludes 10 December.

"Regrettably, the DPRK has so far decided not to cooperate with the efforts to enable it through dialogue and verification to come into compliance with its non-proliferation obligations," the Director General said. "I sincerely hope that the DPRK will re-think its position and avail itself, through constructive interaction with the Agency, of the many goodwill offers extended to it with the aim of pursuing peace and stability in Northeast Asia." Earlier this month, the DPRK rejected a resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors. The resolution urged the DPRK: (1) to provide all relevant information to the Agency concerning the reported uranium enrichment programme and other relevant nuclear fuel cycle facilities; (2) to accept the proposal for dialogue at a senior level to provide clarification on this matter; and (3) to come into full and prompt compliance with its safeguards agreement.

Both types of bombs?

Despite UN and international efforts, Global Security suggests that the DPRK may have pursued both the plutonium and uranium tracks to the end. Some US intelligence agencies believed that Pyongyang had both plutonium and uranium bombs ready in some form by 2005.

As of February 2005 Defense Intelligence Agency analysts were reported to believe that North Korea may already have produced as many as 12 to 15 nuclear weapons. This would imply that by the end of 2004 North Korea had produced somewhere between four and eight uranium bombs [on top of the seven or eight plutonium bombs already on hand]. The DIA's estimate was at the high end of an intelligence community-wide assessment of North Korea's nuclear arsenal completed in early 2005. The CIA lowballed the estimate at two to three bombs, which would suggest an assessment that the DPRK either had not reprocessed a significant amount of plutonium from the 8,000 spent fuel rods removed from storage in early 2003, or had not fabricated a significant number of weapons from whatever amount of plutonium had been reprocessed. The Department of Energy's analysis put North Korea's stockpile somewhere in between, which would be consistent with the roughly 7 or 8 plutonium bombs that could be produced from all existing plutonium stocks, with no uranium bombs.

AQ Khan and Pyongyang's possibly uranium bomb

The question of why North Korea would agree to give up its efforts to produce a plutonium bomb during Carter's visit is explained by one name. AQ Khan. Around the time of the Carter visit, Khan was touting his nuclear weapons design services to interested dictators. That fact prompted President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan today to deny that his country helped North Korea with its bomb by insisting it was a plutonium bomb despite a confession that one of its most prominent scientists had in fact assisted Pyongyang and despite the fact that UN knew North Korea was embarked on a uranium enrichment program. Reuters reports:

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf defended his country on Wednesday against suspicions that illegal nuclear proliferation by a disgraced atomic scientist had enabled North Korea to carry out a nuclear test. "This bomb (North Korea's test) is a plutonium bomb. We don't have a plutonium bomb. We are following a uranium route. That should answer your question," Musharraf told journalists at a news conference, following a dinner with the media to break fast. Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted selling nuclear parts and secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea in early 2004, and has been under house arrest in Islamabad since.

The available facts suggest that AQ Khan may have made the plutonium route which Carter "succeeded" in stopping superfluous and provided an alternative and tested uranium path to bomb during the second Clinton term. Wikipedia traces Dr. Khan's career as the Johnny Appleseed of WMDs in the 1990s.

Virtually all of Khan's overseas travels, to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Niger, Mali, and the Middle East, were on official Pakistan government aircraft which he commandeered at will, given the status he enjoyed in Pakistan. Typically, these were Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft, including VIP transport aircraft such as the Boeing 707 (of which the PAF has 3), and C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft. (Within Pakistan, Khan typically used the PAF's shorter-range CN-235 aircraft.) The high-capacity C-130 Hercules aircraft made numerous round trips to Pyongyang in the 1990s, both with and without Khan, presumably to deliver centrifuges and other nuclear parts. In each case the planes flew through Chinese airspace over Xinjiang and Chinese-controlled airspace in Tibet and Qinghai. Given the 2,000 mile range of the C-130, refuelling would have been required, almost certainly at PLAAF bases en-route.

Carter gained nothing

If North Korea's test involved a uranium device then Jimmy Carter's efforts, however well intentioned, were wholly irrelevant to Pyongyang's nuclear arms program because they only stopped, if they ever did, the Nokor plutonium weapon research. Then the North Koreans would have conceded nothing in fact to Carter in exchange for the billions of dollars he provided by agreeing to stop proceeding down a plutonium road that they had already abandoned. However, if President Musharraf is correct in claiming (how does he know?) that North Korea's bomb was in fact a plutonium weapon, then President Carter's diplomacy didn't stop the program he claims credit for derailing at all. Whether uranium or plutonium, Carter's trip seems to have made no difference.


Blogger Habu1 said...

The most surprising aspect of this thread is that it qoutes so heavily from the NYT, with another citation to Wikipedia. The NY Times is not known for it's veracity or lack of philosophical position. More that 95% of the staff are registered Democrats with an agenda. Wikipedia has recently come under fire for it's lack of oversight to their concept of a all-comers-give-us-your-take on any topic. They have attempted to plug the many holes in their dike but particularly on political matters they are suspect. Their reliance on caveats to disassociate themselves from criticism is pallative but not curative for fact finding.
While the topic appears to cast Mr. Carter in a not so favorable light, I would like to know the other two sides to the story, given that stories always have three sides. Your side,my side, and the truth.

10/11/2006 08:43:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Habu, you want the truth?

Okay: "Carter's dictator trips are never about doing what they seem to be about doing, they're always about creating claims for stateside partisan political power."

And of course, in place-holding for any real effort, a feel-good fantasy is created, in lieu of a real foreign policy achievement.

And of course, this repeated sequence in diverse trouble spots, has the effect of a deliberate attack on the USA, while appearing to be patriotic service.

10/11/2006 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Got two Nobel Winners there:
Jimmah and Mohamed.

10/11/2006 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Raoul Ortega said...

The most surprising aspect of this thread is that it qoutes so heavily from the NYT,

Gotta love that consistency. If the New York Times-Democrat prints something favorable, then its gotta be true. If it doesn't, then obviously it is suspect and an attempt to appease their critics.

I figure that if a publication which would tend to be biased in favor of a subject says something less than nice, it's because they had no choice, that the "truth" as so bad and obvious that they could no longer ignore it.

10/11/2006 09:00:00 PM  
Blogger Achilles Jones said...

God how I love your mind, Wretchard.

10/11/2006 09:01:00 PM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

carter is the inspector clouseau of geopolitics - and we are all chief inspector dreyfus

10/11/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Had it not been for Watergate, Jimma Cater would have returned to Plains,Ga. and been a peanut farmer.
That he became the alter ego of Ramsey Clark and Yasser Arafat is the reason I questioned the thread so modestly.
Carter's place in the pantheon of pasr Presidents is well established. Quite near the kitchen door.

10/11/2006 09:06:00 PM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

raul - you articulate a basic rule of evidence: statements against interest are inherently reliable while others are not.

10/11/2006 09:06:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Raoul Ortega,
Well, that bit of sophistry isn't even sophomoric. Baseline drivel.

10/11/2006 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Amazing - AQ Khan is an epochal betrayer, like Prometheus.

We should demand he be pinned to a rock and birds eat him alive. And hey - that's a part of the world where you could get something like that done.

10/11/2006 09:10:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

I think the main thesis rests on the assertion that there were plutonium and uranium programs in North Korea. Now it isn't just the Times and Wikipedia that assert that. The UN asserted that. Global Security asserted that.

Foreign Affairs also asserts the uranium program, as does the Washington Post quoting DOE sources. And there are many others. I guess the gist of the argument is that there were two programs. Carter only claims to have stopped one.

One could probably hold that the Bush administration could have, when it became aware of the subsequent uranium program in 2002, made the same offer that Carter did in 1994. But then if the North Koreans were already cheating from 1997 before the Bush administration came into power, then the problem is more fundamental. North Korea may have been negotiating in bad faith.

10/11/2006 09:13:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

in what parallel universe does that even come close to comfirming a"basic rule of evidence?"

10/11/2006 09:17:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

So, the Clinton Administration--and Mr. Carter, had no inkling that there may have been the other program? And didn't think to inquire, either? Good God.

10/11/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

DPRK Nuclear Test9 October 2006

In a statement, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said he deeply regrets, and expresses serious concern, about the reported carrying-out of a nuclear test by the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Read more »

IAEA Leader's Phone Tapped (
The Bush administration has dozens of intercepts of Mohamed ElBaradei's calls to Iran...
And now a message from the Twilight Zone:

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei deeply regrets, and expresses serious concern, about the reported carrying-out of a nuclear test earlier today by the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

This reported nuclear test threatens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and creates serious security challenges not only for the East Asian region but also for the international community.

The breaking of a de-facto global moratorium on nuclear explosive testing that has been in place for nearly a decade and the addition of a new State with nuclear weapon capacity is a clear setback to international commitments to move towards nuclear disarmament, said the Director General.

Dr. ElBaradei further reiterates the urgent need - more than any time before - for establishing a legally binding universal ban on nuclear testing through the early entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty.

Dr. ElBaradei continues to believe in the importance of finding a negotiated solution to the current situation regarding the DPRK nuclear issue. The Director General believes that resumption of dialogue between all concerned parties is indispensable and urgent.

10/11/2006 09:22:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

It's the "hostile witness" thing in trials, habu. If he can be made to state something against his own interests, it is likely the truth.

10/11/2006 09:24:00 PM  
Blogger istarious said...

Why hasn't AQ Khan been called in for questioning by the IAEA? Why isn't the US making such demands directly to Pakistan? Did the US trade access to OBL in return for access to AQ Khan? Did Pakistan create OBL as a bargaining chip to trade against its Jihadi WMD program?

10/11/2006 09:32:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

"...Dr. A.Q. Khan's open promotion of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities became something of an embarrassment to Pakistan's government. The United States government became increasingly convinced that Pakistan was trading nuclear weapons technology to North Korea in exchange for ballistic missile technology. In the face of strong U.S. criticism, the Pakistani government announced in March 2001 that Dr. A.Q. Khan was to be dismissed from his post...."
link wiki

Remember, almost the first thing the incoming admin did was force AQ Khan into the open. Had Gore won, would we have ever even heard the name?

10/11/2006 09:37:00 PM  
Blogger istarious said...


You can't say that with a straight face. They let him walk. I want to know why.

10/11/2006 09:45:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Now would that be the Janet Cooke Washington Post?
And would the Fireign Affairs article be written by the former editor of the New Republic,Selig S. Harrison. The same New Republic who's current Editor-at-Large Peter Beinart has a regular spot on Al Franken's failing leftist's Air America radio program? Or would it be the same New Republic whose Senior Editor previously wrote for the ultra leftist Mother Jones, Michelle Cottle along with another Senior Editor from MOther Jones John B Judis?
I could go on but the patina of quoting from your sources is definitely leftist.

10/11/2006 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger istarious said...

Why isn't Pakisssssssstan on the Axis of Evil list?

10/11/2006 09:49:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

A lot of questions and not as many answers. But common sense would suggest that North Korea's continuing cash flow, in the absence of any bona fide economic activity, depends exclusively on being an ongoing threat. Therefore when Kim had run through Clinton's $2 billion he needed a replacement threat to keep the shakedown going. If he hadn't already thought of the uranium program when Carter had left it would have occured to him shortly thereafter. It would be utterly contrary to North Korea's interests to permanently disarm because its income depends solely on remaining a menace. Out with the plutonium, in with the uranium.

Therefore Jimmy Carter's "engagement" theory only works if Clinton's largesse was simply the downpayment on a continuous stream of "engagement" payments, where North Korea periodically rattles the saber and the international community periodicially bribes him back from the edge. Principle aside, some will argue this is a cost-effective way of dealing with Pyongyang; cheaper at least than invading it. Because if we have learned nothing from Iraq it would be that by the time allied forces reached the North Korean capitol the main WMD assets -- its scientists, managers, hard drives, engineering prototypes -- would all decamped for the highest bidder. And maybe the bombs too. But the problem with the "engagement" strategy is that the absolute threat which North Korea represents will also grow over time, fed ironically by these payments. It's like feeding a beast as the alternative to shooting him, the beast getting all the while larger while we feed him. Until maybe one day we won't have the bullets big enough to kill the monster we ourselves have bred.

10/11/2006 09:50:00 PM  
Blogger possumDieter said...

The Talk page for the wiki Buddy links to is interesting in and of itself

There's a documented argument between a few personalities on what were the most plausible means of enriching Uranium by Pakistan, AQ Khan and some smoking-man figure named "M Qadir Hussain" who I've never heard of, but I wouldn't know anyways.

They argue that Pakistan had a smaller window by which they had the capacity to develop the uranium weapons they tested in 1998. They suggest this points to an advanced liquid centrifugation technique, one whose obscurity, as they allege, used to be the crux of US assumptions about nonproliferation. People would do it the manhattan project way and it would take forever - that is with gas centrifuges.

The other possibility they speculate upon is if China helped ends meet.

Links to the user's wiki pages:


10/11/2006 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

ex missed a few steps in the objective test of statement against interest. sorry old chap.

10/11/2006 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

PossumDieter...I love it..very creative. H/T rotflmao

10/11/2006 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2004, well within the Bush Administration, gave this testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which substantially confirms the existence of a new uranium program after the Carter mission. It is presumably the official position of the Bush Administration and not just the viewpoint of the NYT and its ilk.

The Agreed Framework left resolution of pre-1993 discrepancies, especially quantities of plutonium that the D.P.R.K. might have recovered, for the distant future, linked to construction progress on the light water reactors provided under the Agreed Framework. The Agreed Framework did not, as we learned later, end the North Korean nuclear arms programs. By the fall of 2002, our intelligence community assessed that North Korea was pursuing a covert program to produce enriched uranium – in violation of the Agreed Framework, the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the D.P.R.K.’s Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, we determined that North Korea had been pursuing the program for a number of years, even as it was negotiating with senior American officials to improve relations.

10/11/2006 10:02:00 PM  
Blogger possumDieter said...


It came to me like a fever caught in a bog. I owe everything to that beautiful beautiful bog...

10/11/2006 10:10:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

America's third president, Jefferson Thomas, when confronted with Muslim pirates, famously said, "Millions for Tribute, But Not One Cent for Defense!" These ringing words were later to guide the 42nd President (and semi-namesake).

10/11/2006 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/11/2006 10:20:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Wonder if Congress will provide US with the plunger its offering for Iraq

Once we change our mind about where the finish line is, turned out we got there early, faster than any time in history. itll be studied for generations and thats whats most obvious

The 38th can just be where the RK books stop.

selectively permeable

only lets in money and lets out the ChiComs

Peanut'd be more than happy to help us with that

10/11/2006 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Db2m said...

There used to be an extablishment in East Texas known as "Brother-in-law & Son's Washateria".

Taking the cue, the next extablishment of note to go on the books was "Jimmah & Bubba's Centrifugia".

10/11/2006 10:41:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Blog, Possum, Blog!
You owe everything to a Blog.

10/11/2006 10:43:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...


10/11/2006 10:43:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

The Chinese stance drew frustration from Japan which, more than anyone else, wants tougher sanctions.

"We do recognize, acknowledge that they have made some effort but in our view, we would have to ask them to make further efforts," Japan's UN Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said.


10/11/2006 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

It would be interesting to consider the strategy of a country able to make only a few nuclear weapons and with only a limited means of technological delivery. They would be unlikely to adopt the strategies of the former Soviet Union, with a strategic triad and a central command and control. They could not afford it. They would simply not have the warhead numbers to adopt the Soviet strategy.

So how would a country with a dozen warheads and a primitive airforce and navy project its force? Because unless it had a viable means of force projection its weapons are useless. The answer it seems to me lies in being able to manufacture nuclear weapons which can be deployed in the same manner in which they have an established institutional capacity; that is by agents or proxies.It seems most implausible that they could attempt to create an airforce to deliver weapons when they have a secret service with established experience in smuggling and setting off bombs overseas.

Therefore weapons like North Korea's are usable only within the strategic framework of terrorism. Not as naval or air weapons. They will be designed as terror weapons. They cannot be effectively used any other way. Hence, I am not persuaded by analysis which claims North Korea is trying to make bombs "like ours" in the multikiloton or multimegaton range, at least not in the near future. It would suit their book better to have smaller, crude but fairly deniable weapons. If I had to choose my design desiderata for a Nokor weapon it would be: componentizable, dual-key and untraceable. Size would be secondary. It can be delivered by ship or assembled in place for so long as it is componentizable and requires a dual key to set off.

10/11/2006 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger istarious said...

Pakistan's cross-pollinating nuclear and missile technology between North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and yet, Pakistan remains our ally. Why?

10/11/2006 10:55:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Cross polination is a feature, not a bug. It shows engagement and "connectivity" and each of those will smooth it all out. Just be patient, already. What's to rush? its a delicate process.

Its like putin a death row inmate down.

10/11/2006 11:01:00 PM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Check out Sen. harry Reid's 1.1 million dollar land deal on MSNBC....broke a lot of Senate Rules and perhaps the law..this will be big

10/11/2006 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

habu1 - Carter's place in the pantheon of pasr Presidents is well established. Quite near the kitchen door.

No doubt Carter is pleased so see that plates and silverware are being laid at his table in preparation of when Dubya leaves office. Finally, some company!

Buddy - Remember, almost the first thing the incoming admin did was force AQ Khan into the open. Had Gore won, would we have ever even heard the name?

No, the US is allowing Pakistan to shield him from USA, Euro, Japanese, and IAEA interviewers. Bush's twin foreign policy fixations were "evil-doers" and Iraq. Everything else is low priority or irrelevant. Nuclear proliferation is OK as long as "evildoer terrahists who hijacked the noble Religion of Peace" don't get the bomb.

Likely Bush has agreed to let Pakistan keep AQ Khan away from interviewers, even our own CIA, in return for Pakistan's grudging help against "evildoers"....because it is obvious that high-ranking military, civilian, and ISI personnel in Pakistan knew all about what AQ Khan was doing and an interview might have AQ spill inconvenient beans.

As for Gore doing it, vs. "The American Churchill (just ask any Likudnik or neocon...)? The AQ Khan operation was started by British intelligence during Clinton's Administration. The CIA joined it, based on other incidents involving Pakis seeking nuclear components in the USA and info that the Pakis were helping other Islamoids and N Korea. The Euro, Asian, and American sources of AQ Khans network acquisitions were known to exist.

Gore would have inherited that, and Gore whatever his personal beliefs would have been forced to invade Afghanistan by American opinion after 9/11 happened. It was what happened in Afganistan, plus a desire after 9/11 to get Libya off the list of pariah nations rather than risk further pariah hood that had Libya talking to British intelligence. In 2002, the US joined the Brits and only a few details remained that were being haggled about. When the American Churchill's Iraq adventure broke down final Libyan resistance - it was in large part resistance that had mounted as Quadaffi got earlier encouragement from global opposition to a US invasion of Iraq. Libya then revealed it's nuclear state secrets that showed a massive transfer of Pak know-how and technology - allowing us to nail AQ Khan, then let him off the hook at Bush's "good friend" Prevez Musharaff's urging.

The question is if Gore had been President, with a Secretary Biden or such and the whole US military was free to strike after dusting the Taliban and Al Qaeda - whether or not Libya would have capitulated if they thought they were next. We know the Brits wanted Libya next as easy, low hanging fruit until they became convinced by global intelligence that Iraq was seeking the same think Libya and N Korea wanted. And neither Libya or N Korea was in a position to threaten Bush and the neocons wanted to "take out Iraq in a cakewalk" then hit Syria, then hit Iran, then hit KSA...if they failed to accept hegemony...and stop "Evildoers who hijacked the good name of the Religion of Peace from the vast ranks of Moderate Muslims hungry for freedom and democracy."

10/12/2006 12:31:00 AM  
Blogger lugh lampfhota said...

Pakistan is a nominal American ally. Mushareff will do what he has to do to survive. Whether it be making deals with the Taliban or America.

Mushareff rounds up enough Al Qaeda to keep America off his back and gets cash and prestige. America gets limited access to sniff around in Pakistan so long as we don't conduct military operations inside the country.

If things go bad in Pakistan, we get mullahs with nukes. So we hold our nose and go with the devil we know while hoping things don't go bad.

So many lose-lose situations for the US in the post-Cold War world.

10/12/2006 12:56:00 AM  
Blogger summignumi said...

Wretchard, I believe the Kim-Il needs both small and large, the small for the reasons you summarize and a few large for two reasons, one to be a show if he sees black shadows and the other reason for SOKOR, even with a rickety old DC3 or Black Market well used Lockheed-Martin transport he could fly it to Seoul and inflict the massive death that would settle the debt Kim-Il believes is due, Think about it, would a US prez Nuke NOKOR even after Kim-Il did Seoul? I have a lot of doubt. I really have trouble believing a US prez (of today’s bred) would Nuke any small country with or without their own nukes aimed at us, the internal and global political fall out would be a night mare for them to comprehend and thus not do it.
Old wood head Carter is simple trying to compensate to his personal religion of the Democrat way for what his administration cost them since he left office in disgrace.

10/12/2006 01:09:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...


The problem you mention is a real one. The problem for an allying relying on the American "nuclear umbrella" is that it only made sense in a World War 3 scenario. Sure the US would nuke North Korea if it obliterated Tokyo. But what about in retaliation for a subkiloton, but still nuclear strike against a Japanese army base in Hokkaido? Or how about a strike against Manila, or Bangkok? Is that worth World War 4? Now if American allies had their own nukes then it would be their call to respond as they wished. But to rely on Washington for security against a subkiloton weapon? A multimegaton warhead creates guarantees its own retaliation. Smaller devices fall in the cracks between a carbomb and a big nuclear weapon. One could argue that the hit on the WTC on 9/11 was pretty close to the damage that a .2 kt weapon would have had, or thereabouts, allowing for the fuel loads of the aircraft. And yet what was the US response to that?

10/12/2006 01:27:00 AM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

"One could argue that the hit on the WTC on 9/11 was pretty close to the damage that a .2 kt weapon would have had, or thereabouts, allowing for the fuel loads of the aircraft. And yet what was the US response to that?"

Ummm, we liberated Afghanistan and dropped a lot of fuel air bombs on those that opposed us. Not to mention the Specter gunships and all the rest of the "toys" in our toy chest.

Buddy, get your history straight and don't slander Mr. Jefferson. He was nothing like '42.

"By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

Finally in 1801, with Jefferson as the new President, the country had enough. Three months after Jefferson's inauguation, after refusing to pay Tripoli's demand for immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000, the Bashaw of Tripoli cut down the flagstaff at the U.S. consulate and declared war. Jefferson ordered the frigates President, Essex, and Philadelphia and the sloop Enterprise, under Commodore Richard Dale, to patrol the North African coast and to bombard Tripoli."

10/12/2006 02:01:00 AM  
Blogger hdgreene said...

The Plutonium bomb is the tricky one to build so that is what they were testing.

Not only that, I'd guess it was a sophisticated warhead to sit atop a "rogue state" ICBM -- that is why the test was deep underground: to make it hard to identify the nature of the warhead. A number of nations would be involved in the project. Certainly Iran and perhaps Pakistan. The agreemeent may be a decade or more old. After everyone had their Uranium nukes (to keep US at bay) they could "step up" to these warheads.

Pakistan was helping NK in the 1990's. Would they dare do that behind China's back? After all, China had helped them acquire the bomb and might be mighty pissed at this violation of the franchise agreement. At one time did China see "rogue state proliferation" as in its interest -- and has it changed its mind? Mao thought he could lose 200 million in a nuke war and his picture still hangs, does it not?

I wonder what is going on in China. It is possible that the Technocrats at the top don't have control of the military (talk about a State within a State!). So if the Chinese government is not involved, then factions in the Chinese Military may well be. Mass proliferation may not be in China's national interest but in a powerful faction's interest (Maoist "True believers" or folks who want a few nukes for themselves in a coming power struggle). Does China fear "Chaos on its border" or Chaos in the ranks?

I read "Chinese Shadows" by Simone Leys (I think I got the name right) during the Cultural Revolution. It still may apply.

10/12/2006 08:06:00 AM  
Blogger NavyDoc said...

I'm sorry. I thought Buddy was being ironic. shows what I know.

10/12/2006 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Uh, okay, C4, let's don't credit the admin for anything.

Exposing AQ Khan, turning Libya, subduing the Taliban, eliminating Saddam, keeping the war largely concentrated in Iraq, all while booming the economy in USA & the world (while overcoming recession, a trillion-dollar financial bubble, exposing corporate rot grown up thru the Clinton years, 911, Katrina, and bringing down by force of arms two dictatorships of terror, and liberalizing by threat or example a dozen others), are all things that Gore would have done as well.

Wretchard, I think you are dead on, re the NoKo plan (small crude deniable agent-delivered nukes to exploit the sub-retaliatory cracks in western defenses). It has the ring of truth.

Tarnsman, so I got a few of the Barbary Wars details a bit wrong, big deal.

10/12/2006 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger redaktør said...


Would the Russians and the Chinese care if Pakistan and Iran are nuked? No, I don't think so. The Koranimals seeking WoMD are at the doorsteps of Russia and China. We're playing this game as totally pussified fagots.

10/12/2006 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger charlotte said...

A few years ago in Japan, I read in one their newspapers that someone in service to Jong-il overheard him exclaim, the day Carter left Pyongyang, that good ol' Jimmy had just given him the resources and cover the DPRK needed to continue with its nuclear weapons program. Never read that Stateside, and of course the Japanese have their biases against the Korean kook ( kooky, as in a weed chipper interested in pop culture kind of way.)

I used to think Carter was delusional with a JC complex. Now I'm convinced his constant derogation of US policy, celebration of gutter tyrants abroad, and his rewriting of history into self-serving Christo-Marxoid-personal fantasy fiction are the products of a mean, mendacious mind attempting to justify the failed Carter Presidency and insult the electorate that rejected him.

10/12/2006 08:47:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Catherine, do you mean to say that bending a few nails from time to time, nailing a couple of boards together for the cameras, helping build a house or two for a family or two, doesn't exonerate his massive damage to the prospects of the future of the human race?

10/12/2006 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger greginboise said...

More relevant Kipling:

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

10/12/2006 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger john said...

From Wilkipedia again:

"He (Jimmy Carter) attended Georgia Southwestern College and Georgia Institute of Technology and received a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. Carter was a gifted student and finished 59th out of his Academy class of 820. Carter did some post-graduate work, studying nuclear physics and reactor technology for several months at Union College until his father's death after which he resigned his commission."

Based on that piece of biography, Mr Carter would be the first to appreciate the difference between plutonium or enriched uranium based bomb development processes. Even if he was not aware of the AQ Khan meanderings while he was negotiating in North Korea, it would be clear to him now that he and the Clinton administration were duped. So anything he writes today that does not recognise this actuality, even in hindsight, is but political revisionism. He was played and he would know that better than anyone.

10/12/2006 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Being "played" means you're a chump.

When the appearance of "being played" is acceptable, because it masks something else (such as, acting-out a tranzi ambition), then you aren't a chump at all, but something much else.

Please excuse my paranoia, but, the man IS a nuclear engineer.

10/12/2006 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger BetaCygni said...

I don't think NoKo can afford to use a nuke even through a proxy. With the nuclear material fingerprinting they can do, it would be traced back to them and they would be toast. We wouldn't need nukes, but we might use small ones to try and take out as much of their artillery pointed at Seoul as possible. Don’t forget that SoKo has a large well trained army too. They would crush NoKo with U.S. help. I’m sure there are plenty of cruise missiles and JDAM’s already coded with the proper targets.

If NoKo sets off a nuke in another country either overtly or through a proxy, don’t expect China to come across the Yalu River like last time. Kim would have forfeited his right to rule even in their eyes.

I have to make the same argument about Iran. Any proxy nukes would be traced back to them and they would be toast. If they launch nuclear tipped missiles at Israel, they will be incinerated. Jihadist leaders are always talking about apocalyptic times, but never volunteer to lead the way to heaven.

Nukes for countries like North Korea and Iran are only good for regime preservation which is what they mostly care about. They want to prevent another Iraq. If they get frisky and start invading other countries, they will get slapped down even with nukes.

On the other hand, I believe Bush when he says he will not tolerate NoKo and Iran going nuclear. I doubt however that diplomacy will have run its course before he leaves office. So it will be up to his successor.

10/12/2006 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

betacygni--I think what scares people is the lack of institutional control over these weapons.

Iran has its story, as does North Korea, and these "cases" should be seen in the light of the principle of dictatorship in general.

Let them pass, because we have achieved a special body of knowledge on them in particular, and thus feel safe enough, and then what do we do when, say, Hugo has a few of the things, and is fighting to kill the Ven constitution?

Remember, these guys often end up with their own people as their urgent threat.

Any one-man red-button-pusher is likely to end up in a sort of bunker, hating the people who let him down, who weren't up to his grand vision, who can only be redeemed in Gotterdamerung.

10/12/2006 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger charlotte said...

Love that Kipling bit of wisdom, greginboise.

John and Buddy, re Carter, one of you is a generous cynic and the other a soul peeping tom. I think the latter insight, Carter having an agenda, is more on target. He never was stupid, just intent on bringing this country down a couple of pegs to advance the leftist cause of global low-mediocrity and, since his failed bid for re-election, to avenge his political disgrace. Of course, with articles such as this NYT one, Carter's also attempting to cover his backside and support the Democrat story-book approach to foreign policy (which is sometimes Peter Pan and other times Captain Hook, especially under Clinton.)

What's a weed chipper, Catherine? Did you mean 'would'?

10/12/2006 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Griswel said...

"Carter's trip seems to have made no difference"

Oh, but it did - it staunched the flow of headlines.

It also prevented any further effort to stop NK while providing no means to ensure that they kept their bargain.

The Dems did what they always try to do - control the news cycle. They care little for America's actual security, which they blithely assume.

10/12/2006 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

USA has come to resemble a giant shareholder's meeting, where half the shareholders think they're there to plan ahead for the enterprise, and the other half thinks they're there to have a shareholder's meeting.

10/12/2006 11:43:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Both are right, within the limits of their vision.

10/12/2006 11:45:00 AM  
Blogger 3Case said...

Carter is a wretch.

10/12/2006 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

catherine said...

"I think the latter insight, Carter having an agenda, is more on target. He never was stupid, just intent on bringing this country down a couple of pegs to advance the leftist cause of global low-mediocrity and, since his failed bid for re-election, to avenge his political disgrace."

I believe Jimmy Carter is an intelligent, honorable man who adhered to a very high morality. He was also a very ineffective president (he should have been a Baptist minister).

The problem with being President is never having to chose between black-and-white (those sorts of decisions are made much lower down the hierarchy). A Presidential decision is where he choses between an unpopular action now and killing a few thousand people versus doing nothing, remaining popular but dooming millions to die after he leaves office. Those sorts of decisions are why it is vital that contemptible moonbats like John Kerry or very honorable men like Jimmy Carter should not be President.

10/12/2006 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger RattlerGator said...

Good point, eggplant. I concur with your assessment of Kerry and Carter.

Jimmy Carter is an intelligent and decent man. Mistaken, mind you, but he means well.

Unfortunately, that's not enough and can be quite counter-productive.

10/12/2006 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

eggplant's right--Abe Lincoln thought that a president needs to be able to "rise above his principles".

Kerry has none, and believes in having none.

Carter's are biblically inviolable; the leftist Jesus in his mind (and the "touch" he has "received", which lets him "see") has released him from the messy practicalities involving earthbound lesser beings.

10/12/2006 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

BetaCygni said...
I don't think NoKo can afford to use a nuke even through a proxy. With the nuclear material fingerprinting they can do, it would be traced back to them and they would be toast.

Sorry, that whole spiel about an A-bomb being readily trackable back to it's source through forensics is Hollywood bunk.

You can tell exotic bombs exploded above atmosphere by fisson product fractions - "A-hah! Ratio of Rubidium isotopes show a heavy lead tamper characteristic of the Soviet Mark IV thermonuclear device.

But you can't tell with a simple gun-type U-235 bomb, even with access to enrichment centrifuges because various "runs" have slightly different enrichments or contaminants that can be stored, blended and later used to make U-235 that resembles nothing like the feedstock.

And even a simple implosion device is hard to distinguish without looking at similar bombs or the open air testing thereof.

I think we would find who did it with 95% confidence, maybe even certainty based on a smoking gun, but it won't be as easy as fiction literature claims.

I thought about Wretchard's idea that some nuke bombs might be too small to merit a major retaliation, but after kicking it around, I remembered that the radioactivity present after 24 hours for a pure fission device is 1.6 million curies per 1 kiloton of fission energy released.

That means even a teeny-tiny device is worse by orders of magnitude than the worst dirty bomb imaginable. A 0.2 KT bomb would spew 300,000 curies of radioactive contamination over not just the blasted portion of the city, but dozens of square miles of adjacent areas. And while some commentators talk about the "energy equivalent" of 200 tons of TNT was made by the planes then building collapse energy doesn't remotely compare with the blast and fire lethality of a 0.2 KT "mini-nuke".

Energy of course doesn't equate to lethality - it depends on the way the energy is released. A hurricane may have the energy equivalent of 300 hydrogen bombs, but people and towns hit by hurricanes definitely would rather have that hurricane than 300 H-Bomb detonations on a Coast.
Same is true of energy release from gasoline compared to C-4. Gasoline actually has 2.4 times as much chemical energy per pound than C-4 does. But if energy from 15 pounds of gas was released in my car today, the car is still there. But release of equivalent energy from C-4 (15X2.4) = 36 pounds means my car is widely scattered wreckage.

Bottom line on a 0.2 KT bomb would be tens of thousands, possibly up to 150,000 dead depending on placement, many buildings destroyed, major fires in 2-3 square miles, much of the city uninhabitable from radioactive contamination even on a temporary basis.

I think it would still cross the line and compell utter defeat of an enemy with scant regard for "innocent enemy lives" - and may indeed rise to use of strategic thermonuclear weapons of the 400-600KT range. "Proportionality" - so beloved by the French in matters of war-fighting, wouldn't apply - I believe. The compelling lesson we might want to administer might be the Carthage lesson to end nuclear terror by making "an example of one enemy to make all others fear for their souls."

And I'll add that I would favor nuking a country just caught trying to attack or hand over a device to terrorists without a single American life lost. Just trying to do it justifies, IMO, overwhelming nuclear counterforce.

10/12/2006 12:51:00 PM  
Blogger Lilongwe Joe said...

Previous posters have cited delivery constraints as to why NK may only want/need a "small" bomb. But a big bomb might match well with their affinity for tunnels.

10/12/2006 01:00:00 PM  
Blogger charlotte said...


I live in Carter country and the local knowing is that there's more hard-ball and ugly politicking to the man than what Habitat of Humanity and Carter Center photo-ops would show. That the man has done some good is not what I would question. It's the wilful destruction he would visit on this country by asserting the rights and goodwill of tyrant regimes over those of our democracy, time and time again.

Who's even surprised at Jimmy's handling of the Nork nuke situation? There were those at the time who said he would intentionally ascribe good faith on Jong-il's part and empathize with the view that the US is a bully aggressor nation, and they were right.

Who can forget that the honorable Carter has called Bush a liar in interviews (and this a time of terror and war), praised Michael Moore's blatant propaganda, sold us out at his acceptance of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize awards, liked Arafat and his Pali thugs while considering Israel to be in the same immoral league as America, etc? How honorable was it to certify really iffy referendum results for his friend Chavez?

If you can judge a former President by his rhetoric and allies, Jimmy is at least an embittered and vindictive "honorable" man. Yes, the man's a true believer in US arrogance, but funny that.

10/12/2006 01:17:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Panama Canal, Cat, don't forget the Panama Canal.

10/12/2006 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

C-4 makes some interesting points but the practical result is academic. The US can and should make some basic policy statement and some private pronouncements.

In public the US should state as a matter of policy that it will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. That would be some incentive for those contemplating joining the nuclear club.

The US should remain silent as to what it would do with a nuclear state.

Privately, the US should introduce the concept to particular states that they will not be given the presumption of innocence by any nuclear attack on the US. (Korea and Iran) This could be ameliorated by the degree of inspection provided to US inspectors. (Pakistan)

A rogue nuclear attack by pilfered weapons from China or Russia would go un-answered. That has been true for a long time.

10/12/2006 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Kinuachdrach said...

While I tend to support Cedarford's "Pre-emptive Nuking" approach, we have to remember that the key factor in any response (pre-emptive or post-facto) is WILL. Do modern western liberal societies have the will to respond?

The current whining about Iraq suggests that an opponent might reasonably gamble that the US will not have the will to respond to future provocations. Clearly, Europe would not respond to any atrocity on its soil. Even the Israelis seem to have lost the will to do what must be done for their own survival, if recent events in Lebanon are any indicator. And look at the farce of Iraq's never-ending trial of Saddam Hussein -- evidence that liberal paralysis is now a global phenomenon.

Indeed, a smart opponent (say, China) might calculate that the inability of EUnuchs or Americans to respond to a terrorist nuke might do much more harm to the fabric of their society than the nuclear explosion itself, as pro-response & turn-the-other-cheek apologists duke it out. Said smart opponent might take steps to nudge their troubled dependencies (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan) into helping test the theory that a terrorist nuke could trigger societal breakdown or even civil war among the "barbarians".

10/12/2006 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

You may have a point. Pearl Harbor made the American left mad until VJ day. 911 made 'em mad until the weekend.

10/12/2006 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger istarious said...


Life is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury; signifying something.

10/12/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/12/2006 02:55:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

Carter is a wicked and dull man. The proof is in the NKs eating him up and s*itting him out with the result being that we are less safe. He provided cover to the NKs (I will grant you unwittingly, but that goes to his dullness) in their nuclear development; it's that simple.

* choose your consonant

10/12/2006 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger charlotte said...

* choose your consonant

Multiple choices are fun, but I choose "spitting" him out over the obvious. Still, simply "outwitting" him works, unless one suspects Carter's agenda is to help empower and enrich brave anti-Americans...

Carter, Clinton and Albright were party to enabling Jong-il with treasure and time, either wittingly or not. And it's more than a shame; it's a potential proliferation, terrorism and mass murder problem others are having to confront because they kicked the can down the road after making it a whole lot bigger.

10/12/2006 03:37:00 PM  
Blogger charlotte said...

Guess we're all saying "kick the can" and clunky cliches. Just found this Winds of Change post from 2003:

"North Korea: Clinton Knew...and 'Kicked the Can' Anyway by Trent Telenko

"A recent article in INSIGHT magazine, and an op-ed by Michael Kelly on MSNBC, cast extreme doubt on the "conventional wisdom" Josh Marshall and others are pushing on the North Korea crisis. Namely: 1) that the Bush Administration blundered on North Korea, and 2) that the “Agreed Framework” of Oct. 21, 1994, was anything other than a cynical exercise in appeasement by the Clinton Administration.

"The Clinton Administration knew at the time (1994) from NK defectors that the North Koreans had no intention of honoring the 1994 Nuclear Agreement, according to Insight Magazine...:

Publicly, experts disagree about the state of the North Korean nuclear-weapons program. Some estimates indicate that the Kim Jong-il regime could have a nuclear bomb within one year; others say it already has two. However, the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare (TFTUW) issued a report in August 1994 that said of the Agreed Framework, Washington is buying time while maintaining the charade that the DPRK [North Korea] does not have nuclear weapons. Consequently, the United States and its allies have settled into the 'do-nothing-for-now' mode, merely postponing the hour of reckoning.

The TFTUW report quotes "high-level North Korean defectors," saying that the current leadership in North Korea will not give up nuclear weapons no matter how many agreements it enters into with the United States. One defector, Kang Myong-To, was quoted in the report as saying, "North Korea's nuclear development is not intended as a bargaining chip as seen by the Western world. ... [Pyongyang] sees nuclear development as the only means to maintain Kim Jong-il's regime." Bodansky tells Insight, "Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy of the ruling elite" in North Korea.

"Read the full article for the above passages in context and for how the Clinton Administration made sure those dissenting from the agreement in DoD and State were suppressed...

A 1990 KGB report to the Soviet Central Committee asserted, based on “available data,” that North Korea had “completed” its “first nuclear device” and in 1994, prior to the agreement, the director of the CIA said that the agency believed North Korea had already produced one to two bombs. Current U.S. intelligence assessments are that North Korea has probably produced at least one nuclear weapon.

In October 2002, after years of mounting evidence of North Korean violations, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly confronted North Korea with evidence that it was conducting a clandestine bomb-building program based on a process of enriching uranium. North Korea had begun this program only months after the signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework — and, note, seven years before George Bush called anybody evil. North Korea first denied the truth, then admitted it — and then unilaterally “nullified” the 1994 deal..."

10/12/2006 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger lugh lampfhota said...

World Net Daily has reported another threat from Dr. Evil today:

"Everything will be settled in a week," said Kim Myong-chol on KBS Radio. "That is, whether we, Korean people, will remain as we are now, or lose, or New York will lose, or Washington, D.C., will lose, it will all be settled once and for all."

Man would I love to see the Hermit Kingdom take a full load from a SSBN. The look on Wen Jiaboa and Ahmadinejad's faces would be priceless.

10/12/2006 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

"...a full load from a SSBN."

You lookin' to make the rubble bounce?

10/12/2006 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

USN has 18 SSBNs, each with 24 Tridents, I believe, each of which has up to 10 MIRVs @ 100 kilotons per warhead.

So, a single SSBN can kill 200 plus cities, each target hit with a weapon five times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

Every single SSBN is tied for third largest military power in the world.

Ouch, that hurts.

10/12/2006 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

It's like feeding a beast as the alternative to shooting him, the beast getting all the while larger while we feed him. Until maybe one day we won't have the bullets big enough to kill the monster we ourselves have bred.

Even the many layers of missile defense we are getting on-line aren't enough for 100% coverage, so we will have to ration the protection for those countries which vote with us for sanctions against North Korea. Countries which exercise their veto or engage in "sunshine" policies with Li'l Kim, unfortunately, cannot fall under the US strategic missile defense shield at this time.

10/12/2006 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Catherine,I'm with you .Carter an honorable man or a decent man.What a joke.He's a venal little prig who has accomplished the impossible.He actually has outdone his horrific presidency with a very destructive post presidency running interference for our enemies.I have more respect for his brother Billy Bob Beergut than Jimmah.
I'll throw this in for free from my lofty perch as a cabinetmaker of 30 years vintage.Carter is not even a good woodworker.On top of that his wife is a harpie and his daughter is ugly and Miz Lillian dressed him funny!

10/12/2006 08:34:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger