North Korea Is In Trouble Now...Security Council Agrees On A Strongly Worded Letter
In yet another display of Obama's awesomely awesome diplomatic prowess, the UN Security Council has reached an agreement on how to respond to last week's missile launch by North Kora.
The US said it wanted a tough resolution (for what little that's worth) but not even Obama's bowing and scraping tour of Europe could get Russia and China to go for that. All the US and Japan got was a "Presidential Statement".The US draft that refers simply to a launch, without specifying whether it was of a satellite or a missile, calls on the UN sanctions committee to designate North Korean entities and goods that should be subject to sanctions under UN Security Council Resolution 1718, passed in October 2006 following a North Korean nuclear test. The sanctions have not been effectively enforced since that time, although UN member states are empowered to do so. Susan Rice, US ambassador who presented the draft statement on Saturday, said it sent a “strong message to the DPRK that their violation of international law will not be treated with impunity”.No word on whether or not she said that with a straight face. I'm sure the North Koreans are quivering in fear of a press release warning them that the sanctions that have been ignored for over 2 years will suddenly be enforced. Obviously this is bullshit since the Security Council couldn't rouse itself to pass another theoretically binding resolution (no, I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that) but punted for the diplomatic equivalent of a blog post. As John Bolton argued in his book, this kind of action isn't simply a defeat for the US but for the idea that the UN is a viable institution. The people who claim to support it so much are the first to emasculate it through this constant retreat from its supposedly 'binding' resolutions. They do far more damage to their beloved institution than any supposed unilateral cowboy ever did. Maybe it's just me but I'm starting to get the idea that the UN is a fabulous waste of time and money.
Comments
Posted by: Y-not at April 11, 2009 09:07 PM (KQBGs)
Posted by: Z Ryan at April 11, 2009 09:09 PM (PDeVA)
Posted by: exceller at April 11, 2009 09:09 PM (6beBT)
Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 11, 2009 09:12 PM (949GY)
Posted by: mossback at April 11, 2009 09:13 PM (in8Vs)
Hans, you're bustin' my balls.
Posted by: Kim Jong Il at April 11, 2009 09:13 PM (yiNoG)
Posted by: Kim Jong-il at April 11, 2009 09:14 PM (obJsq)
Posted by: steevy at April 11, 2009 09:15 PM (jhR51)
Posted by: Kestrel♠ at April 11, 2009 09:16 PM (/UJNA)
Posted by: Big Daddy at April 11, 2009 09:22 PM (ZB+Vj)
Posted by: mossback at April 11, 2009 09:23 PM (in8Vs)
Posted by: Cheri at April 11, 2009 09:25 PM (AQtrD)
What a fuckin' tool.
Posted by: CB at April 11, 2009 09:28 PM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: mossback at April 11, 2009 09:30 PM (in8Vs)
Posted by: torabora at April 11, 2009 09:30 PM (2sgLK)
Posted by: LYNNDH at April 11, 2009 09:32 PM (yEAoh)
Posted by: OhioDude at April 11, 2009 09:34 PM (Ftcrf)
Posted by: gazzer at April 11, 2009 09:34 PM (0G51j)
Posted by: General Decker at April 11, 2009 09:36 PM (6beBT)
Posted by: wherestherum at April 11, 2009 09:36 PM (gofDd)
You know what else would've made a stronger message than that? Some fucking silence. That's what. That's how castrated a message you're sending to the DPRK. That such enlightened "smart diplomacy" could be even less productive than not saying a word is stunning, yet here we are.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 11, 2009 09:39 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: muffy at April 11, 2009 09:40 PM (zplc6)
Posted by: mossback at April 11, 2009 09:43 PM (in8Vs)
Posted by: Flubber at April 11, 2009 09:43 PM (+TRm5)
Posted by: Balloon Man at April 11, 2009 09:45 PM (AEdWT)
Rice: their violation of international law will not be treated with impunity”.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: rockhead at April 11, 2009 09:48 PM (DvaIL)
Geeze, ya got me to thinkin' the same thing, doncha know? Ya betcha!
Posted by: TennDon at April 11, 2009 09:49 PM (o6Yv2)
My double doctorate in underwater BB stacking from the University of Warsaw tells me that the only viable option might be to whoop that ass like a looter in a riot – UN First of course. But that’s just me.
Posted by: Tallarn at April 11, 2009 09:51 PM (BVPx6)
Posted by: B.O. at April 11, 2009 09:52 PM (6beBT)
Posted by: Reiver at April 11, 2009 09:54 PM (DSfeW)
Buncha lawyers in the White House. They think that they can deal with the Norks by serving a subpoena.
These "smart people" are pretty damned stupid, aren't they?
Posted by: AmishDude at April 11, 2009 09:56 PM (i01iV)
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at April 11, 2009 09:57 PM (ltwze)
So we keep the U.N. for the irony - that pointless deference to a world body is instructive so that we not defer to world bodies? Is this the Machiavellian Futility Paradigm?
I'd rather we keep the money and just buy a bigger military.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 11, 2009 09:58 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: CoolCzech at April 11, 2009 09:59 PM (iafWn)
The most of the contemporary UN operation manual falls into the BS category. To it's credit, the UN has promoted various NGOs, which can be effective SOMPs if properly configured and operated. The fine print is most of the effective NGOs could do just as well (or better) without the UN.
FYI, the classical conservatives are typically very supportive of individual SoMPs, liberal Democrats are believers in Statist SoMPs, with RINOs somewhere lost in the clueless middle, leaning towards the Statist's SoMPs because they are unable to clearly articulate the advantages of conservative/individual SoMPs.
Posted by: drfredc at April 11, 2009 09:59 PM (GM3jU)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 11, 2009 10:02 PM (0qe2I)
Posted by: unamerican hate mongering evil libertarian at April 11, 2009 10:03 PM (2J+Vs)
Right. And now, anyone want some Velveeta nachos?
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at April 11, 2009 10:04 PM (0qe2I)
Posted by: RM at April 11, 2009 10:04 PM (1kwr2)
I'm the Democratic Party! I have no problem getting rid of the tax exampt status of churches, and encouraging every woman to have as many abortions as possible. In times of strife however, I find that a strongly worded letter, preferably delivered by a neutral third party, is the way out of every pickle in the world!
Death to America! Remember to vote Democommie in 2010!
Posted by: shibumi at April 11, 2009 10:07 PM (OKZrE)
Posted by: eman at April 11, 2009 10:09 PM (3xN8g)
i'm with drfredc. the UN falls into the BS category.
Posted by: exceller at April 11, 2009 10:09 PM (6beBT)
Posted by: the aclu at April 11, 2009 10:09 PM (mMzG0)
Ohh... with the chopped jalapeno peppers in it?!?!
Cause I hear Susan Rice digs herself some hot foods, and I have to say, I'd hit it.
K
Posted by: Kestrel♠ at April 11, 2009 10:18 PM (/UJNA)
Well now a letter I am sure Kim Jung Il is hiding under his desk right now. I suppose the Imitation Christ is the BOLD signature at the top of all the other signatures so that Kim KNOWS he is in trouble with the boy wonder.
When can we REMOVE the UN from this country? I swear to goodness ANYONE of any party who says they will excise the pimple that is the UN from our shores will get my support in the next election and I don't CARE what else they stand for!
Posted by: Jaded at April 11, 2009 10:19 PM (WdD3J)
"Pirates" render the US Navy ball-less? LOL. And our "conservative" heroes of the airwaves and internet, with RARE exception, treat Hussein like a worse Jimmy Carter who's time will come, by golly, instead of the actual enemy within that he is? This thing is over...
Posted by: JS at April 11, 2009 10:25 PM (PPA0U)
so the GOP should oppose The Savior by screaming every day?
oh yeah, now there is a winning strategy.
Posted by: exceller at April 11, 2009 10:28 PM (6beBT)
The Gathering Storm
If you haven't read it, you owe it to yourself to do so.
By Winston Churchill, btw
Posted by: sherlock at April 11, 2009 10:34 PM (L4jPh)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 11, 2009 10:43 PM (MlEgW)
"strong message to the DPRK that their violation of international law will not be treated with impunity'".
goddamit I guess I am a parser but who the fuck wrote this sentence? you can't 'treat' something with impunity
one can act with impunity
if this writing indicates the level of intelligence in our diplomatic corps, I weep for our Country- it is as if someone just learned how to spell the word 'impunity', suddenly felt very smart, and was determined to work it into a press release- fucking amateurs
Posted by: The Masked Lapwing at April 11, 2009 10:44 PM (KOkrW)
Posted by: Dr. Manhattan at April 11, 2009 10:44 PM (OkrJ4)
Don't forget: Massive amounts of counterfeit US currency, dumped into asia, africa, and the middle east.
Posted by: Dr. Manhattan at April 11, 2009 10:45 PM (OkrJ4)
"..... that their violation of international law will not be treated with impunity”.
TOP SECRET: The State Department is hoping that Kim's laughing will induce a heart attack. Wow! Talk about 'effective diplomacy'.
Posted by: GarandFan at April 11, 2009 10:46 PM (Thc2c)
Posted by: Dr. Manhattan at April 11, 2009 10:46 PM (OkrJ4)
Posted by: The Soop Nazi at April 11, 2009 10:47 PM (+FzLa)
Posted by: The Masked Lapwing at April 11, 2009 10:48 PM (KOkrW)
Posted by: Blazer at April 11, 2009 10:49 PM (+FzLa)
Actually, 'no soup for you!' is pretty accurate. Lame-ass sanctions for about a year- after which time NORK will plead poverty to the UN, and the 'soup' shipments will resume.
Well-played, Kim.
Posted by: Jones at April 11, 2009 10:59 PM (KOkrW)
I think one of the platforms of the GOP in 2012 should be the boot for the UN. These lefty facists pricks can rot in some 3rd world hell hole. We don't need the UN for any reason whatsoever. It's used to be funny, now it's not. We have enough financial problems in our country, we don't need to keep throwing money at an organization that hates our guts to the core. Fuck em.
Posted by: Sparky at April 11, 2009 11:15 PM (J1f2W)
They had to read Zbigniew Fucking Brezhinski too, if you can imagine that.
Posted by: ingrid newkirk at April 11, 2009 11:29 PM (xyyHG)
Posted by: torabora at April 11, 2009 11:33 PM (2sgLK)
Yes. They should literally scream. Good fucking grief. You have no idea how serious this is. This guy is completely focused on his agenda, and "our" guys? Why they're playing by the very same PC rules (they think they're cutting edge edgy, but they are cookies and milk; they think they're anything but PC, but thy are wrong) that guys like Barry laid down a long time ago, so that you couldn't actually fight back if you wanted to - "Oh I'll say this, but THAT? How dare you!"
Fools...
Posted by: JS at April 11, 2009 11:50 PM (PPA0U)
Maybe it's just me but I'm starting to get the idea that the UN is a fabulous waste of time and money.
STARTING to?
Posted by: thebronze at April 11, 2009 11:55 PM (HE/88)
Oh, did anyone ever mention that the smartest financial minds in the world got us into the Mortgage Backed Assets disaster too? Directed to do so by the brilliant Harvard educated lawyers in Congress and the Harvard educated ACORN lawyer who became the Smartest President EVAH
Posted by: kbdabear at April 12, 2009 12:12 AM (miw86)
Posted by: Travis at April 12, 2009 12:38 AM (UtV84)
Posted by: Another Stupid Typical Fucking Moonbat at April 12, 2009 12:55 AM (s+Gai)
Susan Rice, US ambassador who presented the draft statement on Saturday, said it sent a “strong message to the DPRK that their violation of international law will not be treated with impunity”.
Isn't this in effect the UN saying "now go up to your room and think about what you've done, young man!"
Posted by: kbdabear at April 12, 2009 01:18 AM (7FgWm)
Posted by: I sea kittens at April 12, 2009 01:25 AM (bAL0J)
Kim: Hans Brix?! Oh no! Oh, hi Hans, how's it going.
Hans: Mr. Kim, you must allow me access to your secrets, or else!
Kim: Or else..what?
Hans: Or else...we will become very angry with you! And we will send you A LETTER, telling you how angry we are!
(Transcribed via Alcoholovision)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 12, 2009 01:26 AM (H1lkJ)
Posted by: aaabs at April 12, 2009 01:55 AM (FnLWj)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 12, 2009 02:01 AM (ysoZG)
Posted by: Modgi at April 12, 2009 02:20 AM (3Rge2)
Posted by: I sea kittens at April 12, 2009 02:54 AM (bAL0J)
Posted by: sirsurfalot at April 12, 2009 03:08 AM (Czvjx)
Posted by: Jean at April 12, 2009 03:18 AM (xCBQ4)
Posted by: kbdabear at April 12, 2009 03:32 AM (miw86)
Posted by: Kim Jung Il at April 12, 2009 03:33 AM (miw86)
Try this: New York City cops let the word out that they will no longer protect U.N. diplomats, including on the U.N. grounds.
Local jacks your diplomatic limo? Gee, sorry about that!
Your ambassador gets mugged, loses his gold Rolex and briefcase full of money for hookers? Tough shit.
Druggies loitering outside the headquarters--rather like pirates waiting for a passing vessel--and shaking down everyone who goes in or out? Aw, such a shame!
Meanwhile all the cops formerly assigned to U.N. hand-holding are chasing down more thugs preying on regular folks.
My bet is that either the U.N. would voluntarily leave (oh NO!) or that its members would quickly get the point that talking is utterly useless without the force to back it up. And that if the U.N. continually insults the nation most capable of providing that force...well, we just won't put up with that any longer.
Posted by: sf at April 12, 2009 03:37 AM (xz5dP)
I think the clincher for me came when Libya was given a seat on the "rights council". I didn't have much regard for the UN prior to that but that act alone gave me the first clue that the UN headquarters is clown college.
From day one, the Soviets opposed anything of substance -- it became a place for idiots
like Khrushchev to strut.
The UN is nothing more than a fancier version of League of Nations -- it has no teeth but that may actually be a good thing. Some of the anti-democratic (and largely anti-US) crap that has come out of the UN is astonishing. I don't have much faith the US will ever give these boobs the boot from NYC even if the GOP swept DC but the UN is still, and has always been, a colossal waste of time and money.
And, to be honest, we don't really want a UN with real power over US citizens. Obama may be harbinger of our doom but UN sovereignty over any of us would seal our fate quicker than even The One Zero.
Posted by: prairiemain at April 12, 2009 05:31 AM (uDqa7)
Posted by: mac at April 12, 2009 06:22 AM (baYcF)
Hey! I resent that! We are the World's premiere supplier of distinctive and sometimes strongly worded letters. They're really very niiiiiiice.
Posted by: The United Nations at April 12, 2009 06:49 AM (4iIhs)
Posted by: ajacksonian at April 12, 2009 07:01 AM (oy1lQ)
Was the letter all in caps?
Heyheyhey! Let's not go overboard here! This is the era of "Smart Diplomacy". Remember?
We're not going to make the same mistakes of the previous administration and immediately resort to violence like THAT!
Posted by: Hillary! at April 12, 2009 07:08 AM (4iIhs)
Posted by: outraged at April 12, 2009 07:20 AM (penCf)
Drew,
I have to strongly disagree. "(P)unted for the diplomatic equivalent of a blog post" indeed. A blog post usually takes a position on something. The US UN used this as an opportunity to say "hello" to the Norks.
Posted by: Steve L. at April 12, 2009 07:21 AM (VIEyH)
Posted by: Observer at April 12, 2009 07:38 AM (u0GlI)
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 07:46 AM (RxyRb)
"Liberals! Intellectuals! Peacemongers! IDIOTS!"
I can write adolsescent posts too.
"Conservatives. Anti-intellectuals. Warmongers. IDIOTS."
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 07:56 AM (HUKED)
"Behold the mighty power of the global community standing united against evil."
Behold the mighty power of simpletons standing united for killing people at the drop of a hat"
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 08:03 AM (HUKED)
Yeah, the Norks would never have derveloped any fucking nukes except for the eeeeevil Bush making them do it. I guess they were just sitting around watching porn with Slick of not-at-Albright and Reno going at it with strap-ons during the 90s with not the foggiest idea there was even such a thing as a weapon using radioactive components, you ignorant cocksucker.
Posted by: Trollbuster 101 at April 12, 2009 08:03 AM (dYNX5)
Hilarious. Bush goads the N Koreans into derveloping nukes and this imbecile whines about Obama.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 07:46 AM
Goads? Please tell me this is sarcasm. Do you recall the brilliant Clinton administration handling of this? Epic failure. There is a reason they waited until the smarter, weaker set were in place - again - before they started directly threatening allies in the most provacative way ever.
Obambi had the tools to take it out (and should have, it went right over Japan for God's sake). They knew W had the tools and could have near his term's end and the Norks didn't want to be embarrassed. They also knew they could count on the new smarter, weaker America to say; "Hey..ur...like...um...stop that? Please? Oh, and can we come visit soon and lay a Smart Diplomacy smack-down on your asses?".
My God, every crazy lefty nutjob I know thinks history started 8 years ago. What a bunch of maroons.
Posted by: jcjimi at April 12, 2009 08:15 AM (n99Dn)
'Conservatives. Anti-intellectuals. Warmongers. IDIOTS.'"
Not really. At least finish your thought. "IDIOTS" should be "SAVANTS" for cryin' out load. Or maybe "ANTI-IDIOTS" using your cleverspeak.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 12, 2009 08:37 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: Popcorn at April 12, 2009 08:39 AM (Tha0W)
Posted by: di butler at April 12, 2009 08:39 AM (qPIRP)
"My God, every crazy lefty nutjob I know thinks history started 8 years ago. What a bunch of maroons."
Typical onesided anti-intellectual wingnut drivel - no facts, just a lot of beligerant whining and talk of taking somebody out.
FACT: According to the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to forsake their nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments. While the US did deliver oil, they never did deliver on the light water reactors - a key factor in N Korea's decision to restart its nuclear program.
"My God, every crazy lefty nutjob I know thinks history started 8 years ago. What a bunch of maroons."
Typical anti-intellectual wingnut - no facts, just a lot of beligerant whining.
FACT: According to the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to forsake nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments. The US never did follow through on the building of light water reactors - a key factor in N Korea's decision to restart its nuclear program.
FACT: Bush labelled the North Korean regime part of the axis of evil when the US was saying it was legitimate for the US to use nukes. Can you say gold-plated hypocrites?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 08:40 AM (ypmba)
Posted by: qrstuv at April 12, 2009 08:42 AM (ZcR9b)
The Dear Leader (NK) was pursuing nuclear weapons (for what, to defend itself against its neighbors? China is funding NK, for heaven's sakes.)
Then a dimwitted Democratic president offers him reactors (for entirely peaceful purposes, yeah right) if only Dear Leader would quit pursuing nukes. This is like offering a 16-year-old a Porsche if only he'll stop snorting cocaine.
Then a more clear-headed president says, no, we won't help a brutal dictator get his hands on any nuclear technology at all, thank you very much.
Your charge of hypocrisy would work only if the same administration made the cockamamie offer and then retracted it. So, epic fail there.
Then back to your main point, how exactly am I "forcing" the 16-year-old to snort cocaine by failing to give him the fancy car?
Posted by: qrstuv at April 12, 2009 08:49 AM (ZcR9b)
FACT: According to the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to forsake their nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments. While the US did deliver oil, they never did deliver on the light water reactors - a key factor in N Korea's decision to restart its nuclear program.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 08:40 AM (ypmba)
Who was president in 1994?Who was president in 1995?
Who was president in 1996?
Who was president in 1997?
Who was president in 1998?
Who was president in 1999?
Who was president in 2000?
Posted by: Tinian at April 12, 2009 08:50 AM (Ohodx)
Posted by: qrstuv at April 12, 2009 08:50 AM (ZcR9b)
Posted by: Trollbuster 101 at April 12, 2009 08:53 AM (dYNX5)
T Dub makes it seem like the US was just not keeping it's promises. However,
Smooth implementation of the 1994 agreed framework was obstructed for a time by North Korea's refusal to accept South Korean-designed LWR model reactors.
Source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
Posted by: mitthrawnurdo at April 12, 2009 09:09 AM (otlXg)
See the Fact Sheet on DPRK Nuclear Safeguards.
The Norks lied to Carter/Albright and Clinton was either a) foolish enough to believe in the parchment peace, b) selfish enough not to care as long as no final product came from DPRK on his watch, or c) self-absorbed enough to busy himself with sexual as opposed to defensive military conquests. What a shock that he kicked the can.
At least Bush was bright enough not to kid himself as to what was really going on and quit playing the game. I guess he could have sent over another NBA basketball via Condi Rice as an homage to the fine handling of the situation under the previous administration, but what's a dictator to do with two balls? He had all he needed.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 12, 2009 09:15 AM (swuwV)
I'll take a square in your pool for April 18th.
Why? http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/163448
Note - I don't know how reliable INN is, but "Army Day" seems like the best time to test a new missile, no?
Posted by: mitthrawnurdo at April 12, 2009 09:17 AM (otlXg)
The US never 'followed thru because the NK didn't agree to verification.
FACT: Bush labelled the North Korean regime part of the axis of evil when the US was saying it was legitimate for the US to use nukes. Can you say gold-plated hypocrites?
So now we see the real truth. NK = USA. MORE importantly Dear Leader = Bush. Except for the fact that Bush isn't in office anymore because the US has things called elections, the US doesn't starve it's citizens because it has a thing called an economy, and the US doesn't fire it's nukes randomly because it's dictator for life is bored because there's nothing good on telestar 1.
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 09:17 AM (rEPj1)
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at April 12, 2009 11:00 AM (RdRrk)
"The US never 'followed thru because the NK didn't agree to verification. "
A bald-faced lie or merely ignorance?
"May 20-24, 1999: A U.S. inspection team visits the North Korean suspected nuclear site in Kumchang-ni. According to the State Department, the team finds no evidence of nuclear activity or violation of the Agreed Framework."
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 11:15 AM (ypmba)
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 11:18 AM (ypmba)
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 11:23 AM (RxyRb)
Ever notice how yanks think everybody should obey the UN but them?
Can you say gold-plated hypocrites?
"There is something morally deficient with people who insist that the democratically elected leader of a country of free people is on the same level as a dictator."
I made no such comparison you semiliterate knuckledragger.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 11:55 AM (kre5q)
"Those 17 UN Resolutions sure told Sadaam that he couldn't treat international law with impunity."
Yanks ignore the UN all the time and yet these hypocritical neotwits are the first to complain when someone else doesn't.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 12:05 PM (kre5q)
"Smooth implementation of the 1994 agreed framework was obstructed for a time by North Korea's refusal to accept South Korean-designed LWR model reactors."
Right...until 1995. Anymore distortions bimbo?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 12:12 PM (RxyRb)
How is not bribing the dictator of North Korea "forcing" him to pursue nuclear weapons?
Posted by: qrstuv at April 12, 2009 12:58 PM (ZcR9b)
"How is not bribing the dictator of North Korea "forcing" him to pursue nuclear weapons?"
Force. No one said he was forced. I do think that ham-handed US threats did heighten his interest in nuclear weapons however.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 01:18 PM (ypmba)
Posted by: qrstuv at April 12, 2009 01:23 PM (ZcR9b)
'And just when have dictators not been interested in pursuing weaponry?'
Tell us about the nuke programs of Myanmar and Zimbabwe.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 01:37 PM (RxyRb)
Looks like we got ourselves a real, genuine Eurotrash commie here with "T Dub". Which country are you from, cockholster? One whose asses we saved, or one whose asses we kicked?
And I'm still waiting to here just how the US is supposed to have "threatened" the poor, put upon Norks.
Nuke 'em? Sure, if they hit us first. Then it's nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark. But that hasn't happened. Otherwise all the US didn't do was to reward them for continuing their nuke and missle programs. Oh that's right, Mr. "T Dub" says the inspectors went in and didn't find anything. And Kim just pulled that nuke they tested a few years back out of his nasty ass. Yeah, right.
And just who is he supposed to be defending himself from with his bombs and rockets? The Norks don't have anything that anybody would want. Indeed, as a nation North Korea would have collapsed years ago if the ChiComs and Russians had not propped them up. Let those assholes supply him with oil and nuclear technology if Kim needs it so goddam badly.
Posted by: Cave Bear at April 12, 2009 01:37 PM (TsnSg)
Posted by: Cave Bear at April 12, 2009 01:39 PM (TsnSg)
:Then a dimwitted Democratic president offers him reactors (for entirely peaceful purposes, yeah right) if only Dear Leader would quit pursuing nukes.:
Once again for the dimwitted. US inspectors concluded he had no weapons program in 1999. He restarted his program only after the US failed to live up to its commitments.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 01:41 PM (HUKED)
Both of those are pretty poor countries. I'm not sure their self-appointed rulers have enough money for the standard gold-plated dictator fittings.
But you seem to think that the elected government of a free people is on the same moral level as these assholes who hold their entire nations hostage. You also seem to think that if we're only nice enough, these evil people will behave reasonably.
You might go check out their track records. What did their own people do to "earn" starvation, actual torture, and murder?
Posted by: qrstuv at April 12, 2009 01:43 PM (ZcR9b)
Talk about dimwitted:
"May 20-24, 1999: A U.S. inspection team visits the North Korean suspected nuclear site in Kumchang-ni. According to the State Department, the team finds no evidence of nuclear activity or violation of the Agreed Framework."
How many other nuclear facilities does Kim have stashed around his pathetic little country? It sure didn't take them long to test their bomb afterwards, did it?
And comparing NK with Myanmar or Zimbabwe? Can you say "straw man"? I knew you could.
Posted by: Cave Bear at April 12, 2009 01:49 PM (TsnSg)
"How many other nuclear facilities does Kim have stashed around his pathetic little country? "
Apparently this imbecile thinks you can hide nuclear facilities like Easter eggs.
What is there about NO EVIDENCE that you know-nothing adolescents fail to understand?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 03:20 PM (kre5q)
"One whose asses we saved, or one whose asses we kicked?"
Which war would that be knuckledragger? WWII where the Russians faced 5 times as many German divisions on the Eastern front where they were responsible for about 80% of German military deaths while you YANKS, who killed about 10%, bluster about how you won the war?
Can you say gold-plated WINDBAGS?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 03:26 PM (RxyRb)
"Nuke 'em? Sure, if they hit us first. "
You aren't very well informed, but that hardly surprises me given the pathetic state of the yank media...
"Writing in the March 10, 2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times, defense analyst William Arkin revealed the leaked contents of the Bush Jr. administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it had just transmitted to Congress on January 8.
The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the so-called "axis of evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Libya and Syria; Russia and China, which are nuclear armed."
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 03:32 PM (RxyRb)
"And comparing NK with Myanmar or Zimbabwe? "
I didn't. That was a response to
"And just when have dictators not been interested in pursuing weaponry?'
I see reading isn't one of your strengths. Maybe you are better at one of the other r's - restling maybe?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 03:37 PM (ypmba)
The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the so-called "axis of evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Libya and Syria; Russia and China, which are nuclear armed."
It hardly takes a genius figure out that their reaction would be to try to get nukes by hook or crook - which has or is happening as we speak. The world can thank the US's nuclear hypocrisy.
We have another example...the Israeli destruction of Osirak, which merely led to Saddam increasing his nuclear program 10 fold - so much so that he was on the verge of producing nukes when the first Gulf War started.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 03:45 PM (ypmba)
A bald-faced lie or merely ignorance?
The truth.
From the link by Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 12, 2009 09:15 AM
which goes to: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
1990s: IAEA Safeguards Inspections. After the DPRK had submitted its initial report to the IAEA under its Safeguards Agreement in May 1992, inspections began. Shortly thereafter inconsistencies emerged between the DPRK's initial declaration and the Agency´s findings, centring on a mismatch between declared plutonium product and nuclear waste solutions and the results of the Agency´s analysis. The latter suggested that there existed in the DPRK undeclared plutonium. In order to find answers to the inconsistencies detected and to determine the completeness and correctness of the initial declaration provided, the IAEA requested access to additional information and to two sites which seemed to be related to the storage of nuclear waste. The DPRK, however, refused access to the sites.
---
After the Secretariat had determined, in September 2000, that it would need 3 to 4 years to carry out all the activities required to verify the correctness and completeness of the initial report, the focus has shifted to obtaining full DPRK cooperation to carry out these activities. So far the DPRK has not agreed to even discuss such a programme of work.
The last technical meeting was held in November 2001. Repeated efforts in the course of 2002 to convene a technical meeting with "verification of the correctness and completeness of the initial report" on the agenda have not yet been successful.
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 03:50 PM (rEPj1)
Yanks ignore the UN all the time
Which UN Resolutions does the US ignore 'all the time'?
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 03:51 PM (rEPj1)
"Which UN Resolutions does the US ignore 'all the time'?
Resolutions? None of course...since they have the veto.
I was referring to the UN Charter. I suggest you read it, it is very clear on the use of force. It is permitted in only two instances - when a country is under attack or when sanctioned by the Security Council. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Second Gulf War etc. were all clear violations.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 04:13 PM (ypmba)
Inconsistencies? Suspicious? It that the best you can do?
"the IAEA requested access to additional information and to two sites which seemed to be related to the storage of nuclear waste. The DPRK, however, refused access to the sites.:"
You continue to cheery pick. That was before the Agreed Framework in 1994. A little further down in your link we read
"IAEA Monitoring of the Freeze.
The Agreed Framework stipulates that the IAEA will be allowed to monitor the freeze. At the request of the Security Council (in a statement by the President of the Council of 4 November 1994), and as authorized by the Board of Governors on 11 November 1994, the IAEA has maintained a continuous presence in Nyongbyong to verify the freeze."
Once again for the dull-witted who are unable to absorb information they don't like;
""May 20-24, 1999: A U.S. inspection team visits the North Korean suspected nuclear site in Kumchang-ni. According to the State Department, the team finds no evidence of nuclear activity or violation of the Agreed Framework."
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 04:26 PM (ypmba)
"Both of those are pretty poor countries. I'm not sure their self-appointed rulers have enough money for the standard gold-plated dictator fittings."
As opposed to the advanced nation of North Korea?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 04:41 PM (HUKED)
I suggest you quote it yourself since it's your argument.
The US was an ally and was aiding SOUTH Vietnam who had been invaded by North Vietnam. How are US actions against the UN Charter?
The Second Gulf War was a resumption of the First Gulf War since there was only a ceasefire and not an end to that war. Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the ceasefire terms for 12 years and failed when given one last chance. Blix's statement in March of 2003 said,
"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002)."
" It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. "
Grenada was undertaken to protect American lives because the functioning government had been overthrown and didn't have a functioning governmen. BTW as one of the moron's blogged along time ago on here, the Grenadians celebrate the US 'invasion' as their Thanksgiving day.
Panama and the US have treaties involving the Panama canal and it's security, and that relationship predates the UN.
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 06:48 PM (rEPj1)
""May 20-24, 1999: A U.S. inspection team visits the North Korean suspected nuclear site in Kumchang-ni. According to the State Department, the team finds no evidence of nuclear activity or violation of the Agreed Framework."
After the Secretariat had determined, in September 2000, that it would need 3 to 4 years to carry out all the activities required to verify the correctness and completeness of the initial report, the focus has shifted to obtaining full DPRK cooperation to carry out these activities. So far the DPRK has not agreed to even discuss such a programme of work.
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 07:07 PM (rEPj1)
"So far the DPRK has not agreed to even discuss such a programme of work."
Yep. Still waiting for the Yanks to cough up their part of the agreement.
And by the way, I forgot to mention, between 1961 and 1990 the US targeted North Korea with nukes....a clear violation of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty.
CAN YOU SAY GOLD-PLATED HYPOCRITES?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 07:29 PM (kre5q)
"The US was an ally and was aiding SOUTH Vietnam who had been invaded by North Vietnam. How are US actions against the UN Charter?"
Phoney argument. The two Vietnams were artificial TEMPORARY creations, a "provisional military demarcation line" according to the 1954 Geneva accords until an agreed upon election was held. Of course the elections never came, John Foster and Allen Dulles convinced Eisenhower to cancel them ebecause they were convinced Ho Chi Minh would have received 80+% of the votes.
Yanks breaking their word again? Hardly breaking news.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 07:43 PM (ypmba)
"The Gathering Storm
If you haven't read it, you owe it to yourself to do so.
By Winston Churchill, btw"
Churchill? Oh yeah that guy who gassed the kurds before Saddam. Apparently he had better pr.
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"
Winston Churchill
Quoted in Iraq: From Sumer to Sudan, by Geoff Simons
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 08:00 PM (RxyRb)
"I suggest you quote it yourself since it's your argument."
Whines incessantly about the UN but is too lazy to read its Charter.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 08:02 PM (kre5q)
Yep. Still waiting for the Yanks to cough up their part of the agreement.
The discussion is with the IAEA and NK's obligation to them, NOT the US.
between 1961 and 1990 the US targeted North Korea with nukes....a clear violation of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty.
Exactly what is 'targeting' a belligerent? Like how Soviet ICBM's were aimed at the US?
Phoney argument. The two Vietnams were artificial TEMPORARY creations, a "provisional military demarcation line" according to the 1954 Geneva accords until an agreed upon election was held
Yanks breaking their word again? Hardly breaking news.
The US didn't sign the accords. Hilarious!
Whines incessantly about the UN but is too lazy to read its Charter.
So I'm supposed to read thru dozen of pages of the UN Charter to piece together what illogical ameriphobe rant you're attempting to make? Not my job
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 09:05 PM (rEPj1)
Leave it to the IAEA like the US did when it came to Iraq. You are one two-faced cretin.
"Exactly what is 'targeting' a belligerent? Like how Soviet ICBM's were aimed at the US?"
What is there about NONNUCLEAR power that confuses you simpleton?
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 09:11 PM (HUKED)
"The US didn't sign the accords. Hilarious!"
I didn't say it did knuckledragger. Just pointing out your phony 'north invaded the south' bs - and the anti-democratic nature of US policy.
"So I'm supposed to read thru dozen of pages of the UN Charter to piece together what illogical ameriphobe rant you're attempting to make? Not my job"
Right. It's pretty clear that being informed is not one of your main concerns.
Posted by: T Dub at April 12, 2009 09:20 PM (kre5q)
The justifications laid with Blix's investigations which were SEPARATE from the IAEA. The issue with Iraq was Blix's address in March 2003 regarding the resumption of inspections in Iraq. Blix didn't work the the IAEA. You did know that, correct?
Exactly what is 'targeting' a belligerent? Like how Soviet ICBM's were aimed at the US?"
What is there about NONNUCLEAR power that confuses you simpleton?
West Germany was a nuclear power?? You make me giggle!!!
The US didn't sign the accords. Hilarious!"
I didn't say it did knuckledragger. Just pointing out your phony 'north invaded the south' bs - and the anti-democratic nature of US policy.
No, again you raise another issue after the evidence shows your wrong. The US didn't have an obligation to abide by Geneva 1954, which is what you falsely and hysterically claimed.
"So I'm supposed to read thru dozen of pages of the UN Charter to piece together what illogical ameriphobe rant you're attempting to make? Not my job"
Right. It's pretty clear that being informed is not one of your main concerns.
Why again won't you prove it by actually quoting what you're point is? Again, when confronted, you fail to actually address the issue and change the subject. What's clear is that you have a deep-seated pathological belief that everything that goes wrong in the world has the USA as the root cause.
Posted by: liontooth at April 12, 2009 09:48 PM (rEPj1)
"West Germany was a nuclear power?? You make me giggle!!!"
West Germany? I don't recall mentioning West Germany. Perhaps you need reading lessons - I''d guess you are currently at a grade-two level,
Posted by: T Dub at April 13, 2009 08:13 AM (RxyRb)
Soviet nukes were aimed at West Germany. Does that ring a bell for you?
"Exactly what is 'targeting' a belligerent? Like how Soviet ICBM's were aimed at the US?"
What is there about NONNUCLEAR power that confuses you simpleton?
Posted by: liontooth at April 14, 2009 01:55 AM (rEPj1)
Posted by: hihandbag at October 10, 2009 03:32 AM (B2PQ6)
tiffany jewelry
tiffany
tiffany uk
tiffany jewellery uk
tiffany jewellery sale
tiffany jewellery london
silver jewellery
tiffany jewellery sale
Tiffany Bracelets
Tiffany Sets
Tiffany Rings
Posted by: niuzai at October 13, 2009 03:58 AM (AhInz)
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots
Posted by: retailike at October 17, 2009 11:24 AM (zFgZJ)
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!
Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 10:30 AM (9oMrs)
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
Posted by: fdsfds at October 27, 2009 08:53 AM (8kvkz)
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!
Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 10:36 AM (pgfU2)
Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 12:36 PM (c6EK2)
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa
Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 02:36 PM (LHCCE)
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping
Posted by: reviewups at November 06, 2009 01:25 AM (XxrVz)
Laptop Battery Laptop Battery Laptop Batteries Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery discount laptop battery notebook battery notebook battery computer battery computer battery replacement laptop battery replacement laptop battery notebook batteries notebook batteries
Posted by: laptopbatterytop at November 07, 2009 12:33 AM (AhInz)
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.
Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 09:01 AM (QhfLM)
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier
Posted by: reviewups at November 10, 2009 02:11 AM (UHjri)
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
man ed hardy man ed hardy
woman ed hardy woman ed hardy
kid ed hardy kid ed hardy
Posted by: edhardy at November 12, 2009 12:24 AM (AhInz)
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping
Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 02:05 AM (IeIJx)
supra ShoesThe bestsupra.com seems to be from strong material, and have many seems all over. They are really beautifull.
Supra Skytopbestsupra.com offer Great quality shoe for a reasonable price.
Supra 2009Comfort
Posted by: ryiu at November 13, 2009 12:02 AM (jKBjA)
Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing
business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on
Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 01:23 AM (APB+g)
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa
Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 04:55 AM (s7MB5)
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes
Posted by: nike shoes at November 17, 2009 05:16 AM (DuP3Z)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 07:11 AM (xpuiO)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:36 PM (xpuiO)
Posted by: good ugg boots at November 18, 2009 02:29 AM (nRtva)
Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 08:09 AM (C/zDM)
Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 18, 2009 08:15 AM (WPYlQ)
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0631 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0081 seconds, 174 records returned.
Page size 134 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)