advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

AS IF OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ON HIS PLATE

By
Neal Boortz
@ April 6, 2009 8:44 AM Permalink | Comments (69) | TrackBacks (0)

Well ... the deranged Gargoyle kept his promise. North Korea has been warning for weeks of its intentions to test fire a missile. And they did just that. And no one in the international community -- most assuredly not Barack Obama -- did anything to stop him.

Aren't you glad you aren't walking around in Obama's slippers right now?

The missile has a range of 4,100 miles. North Korea claims that it launched a communications satellite used to transmit data and .. I love this .. patriotic songs. Horsesqueeze. Every other nation in the world knows that this missile was a flub and crashed into the Pacific .. but this maniac insists that Korea now has a satellite circling the earth playing the Oompa Loompa song. Did you really think that Kim Jong Ill was going to admit that this missile is really designed to carry a nuclear warhead? Yeah, I didn't think so.

So what we have here is a clear violation of a UN resolution. Ooooooh, I know. That carries a lot of weight nowadays. But this resolution, which was adopted back in 2006, says that North Korea should refrain from any further nuclear tests or launching another ballistic missile.

Step #2 here would be our response. Just the other day, I weighed the consequences of our response to a North Korean missile launch. Option number one was shooting the thing down, but then risk that being considered an act of war. Or option number two was to do nothing. This is the option that Barack Obama has chosen. And what will be the ultimate consequence of this action? I believe it makes the world a more dangerous place for America. The Gargoyle tested Obama, and Obama didn't meet the challenge. You can react and defend - you can appease - or you can just talk. It would seem to me that Obama's response is to appease and to talk. He wants the U.N. to do something. It is our security that is being threatened here, and Obama turns to the U.N. Some say that Bush outsourced jobs. Is Obama now outsourcing our national security?

Question: Both before and after the missile launch, can you point to one thing that Obama has done that could possibly cause anyone, let alone Kim, to believe that he will step forward unilaterally to defend this country when the threat gets severe enough?

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: AS IF OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ON HIS PLATE.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/26792

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • @Reason@ 04/06/09 11:36:18 PM
    Reading your post reminded me of Billy Madison....we are all dumber for having read it.

    Your weak attempts to justify the war in Iraq don't hold water, son.

    Saddam was a lying psychopathic dictator. Not exactly a relible witness when trying to prove WMD. But you pathetic righties ask "Why would he lie?" instead of "Why would we make such a major foreign policy decision based on Saddam's word?"

    Your primary reason is no better. If our goal was to cut off the line of support you claim Iraq was enjoying from al Qaeda, why didn't we seal the border after we got there?


    And nice try on giving Bush a free pass for doing nothing about L'il Kim. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. L'il Kim tests a nuke, George does nothing. L'il Kim tests a rocket that falls harmlessly into the ocean and now you're up on your soapbox shouting about hypothetical threats.

    Being informed but then forcing everything into your Limbaugh-colored glasses only makes you look like the stupid one. Wake up, fool.

    I award you no points!
    By Gavin Volaire @ 04/08/09 12:54:18 PMreport abuse
  • Mattlanta....
    You are wrong on this subject. The president does not have the authority to police the world. N.Korea is not a threat. If it were we would see secured borders and illegals out.Sorry Im not budging on this.
    By Red Leader @ 04/07/09 09:42:12 AMreport abuse
  • @Red Leader
    I think you missed my point. Entirely. You started your response with "show me where in the Constitution it says..." The Constitution charges the President with the responsibility of defending the country. I'm saying that ICBMs are a threat, and you are apparently saying they're not. That isn't a Constitutional argument - it's an argument about what constitutes a true threat.
    You think it isn't a threat until it crosses into our airspace; I think it's a threat when a looney tunes leader has enough fire power and so little interest in his own nation's well-being that he could pull the trigger.
    By Mattlanta @ 04/07/09 08:16:45 AMreport abuse
  • time to turn the brains on...
    To those who actually believe N.Korea is a threat, think to yourself. What is American foreign policy like in that part of the world? What has it been in the past? What are the historical factors at play here? Why would America reward certain military dictators with cash but then try to punish others? Why the inconsistency? Is N.Korea trying to get on the rewarded status like other military dictators that treat their people badly but are rewarded by America? Guys turn your brains on and get out of the neo-con fog. Turn off cnn and fox and pick up some books. Start with Chalmers Johnson's 'Blowback'. If you were the leader of a country and the only country that has ever used nukes in your region of the planet to kill people was asking you to not pursue nukes would you trust them? Particularly when you've seen their underhandedness in your region of the world before?(gwanju massacre). Guys lets accept the concept of logic, and turn your brains on and start asking some traditional conservative type questions rather than spitting out paranoid neo-con soundbytes.
    By Red Leader @ 04/07/09 08:02:31 AMreport abuse
  • Stupid left
    I am so sick of the rampant stupidity on the left.

    Do you really think the only place in the whole world where al Qaeda exists is in Afghanistan???

    Bush got rid of Saddam because Saddam supported Islamic terrorists in their attempts to kill Americans. Whether or not he specifically supported al Qaeda is irrelevant. Our was isn't solely against al Qaeda -- it's against Islamic terrorist and the countries which harbor and support them.

    Did Saddam have WMD's? Of course he did. Want proof? He TOLD us at the end of the Gulf War exactly what he had. He led us to some of it and destroyed it in the presence of UN inspectors. Then he claimed he'd destroyed the rest of it on his own, and we were just supposed to believe him. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But our primary reason for going into Iraq and removing Saddam was his support for terrorists. We needed to cut off that line of support.

    Whether or not Bush did anything about Kim is irrelevant. The question today is whether or not OBAMA is going to do anything.

    And let's clear up another thing. It doesn't matter of NK's missile can hit American soil -- it can hit American military bases in that part of the world, and kill American soldiers.

    It also doesn't matter if the missile can carry a nuke or not. Is it okay to kill Americans with conventional warheads? I don't think so.
    By Reason @ 04/06/09 11:36:18 PMreport abuse
  • The Bottomline....
    Either we need to amend our Constitution and start bombing any and every country that we feel may be a threat, has human rights violation and basically tell the world; "We are in charge and if you don't like it, we'll kill you with lots of bombs because we are tough and not scared of anything or anybody." OR follow our Constitution AND secure our borders, walking softly while carrying a big nuclear stick.
    By Patriot til' Death @ 04/06/09 09:39:37 PMreport abuse
  • @Ted
    Are you saying the weapons Saddam used to gas his own people posed a threat to the US?

    Are you saying George Bush used media backlash (not lashback) as his reason for not taking the necessary step of taking out North Korea? This is acceptable to you?

    Li'l Kim's "test" is about important to me as Saddam's claim that he had WMD before we invaded Iraq.
    By Gavin Volaire @ 04/06/09 05:41:26 PMreport abuse
  • A Few Comments
    I wish NK only had an incontenant ballistic missile.

    Don't forget that Kimmy was caught developing nukes with Syria in the last few years (I think the ship was stopped by Turkey, right?). Then Israel blew up a supposed reactor recently. It seems like they are actively attempting to spread the technologies to make some cash.

    On the missile front, yes it was a successful test. They could have launched it with a rock on top and called it a elbow and it was still a successful test of a long range nuclear weapon.

    I'm so glad that the UN showed it's power.... a stalemate. How predictable- China and Russia don't want to deal with them. What is everyone afraid of, getting third world countries mad? I wish Japan had grown a set and taken it down on their own.

    Well, I guess we are falling quickly into nuclear proliferation and an eventual test on actual people somewhere. My guess rings similar with others- Iran on Israel. Then what? A nasty UN letter on official stationary? "We're sorry to hear that a million people are dead because we chose not to deal with a rogue nation. Please accept this nice fruit basket." Signed- The UN

    Isn't it time to give the UN a new home in a broke nation like Iceland? Give them some revenue and headaches with dealing with spys, er diplomats and let NYC get out of the babysitting game.
    By Joe @ 04/06/09 04:39:41 PMreport abuse
  • To LiberalHater
    Actually yhe constiution says only the Congress may declare war. They never declared war on Iraq to the best of my knowledge, ergo the 'war' in Iraq is unconstitutional!
    By Elisabeth @ 04/06/09 04:08:21 PMreport abuse
  • Cartoon character
    I can't look at Kim Il Jong as a serious threat as long as he let's his people name rockets with anything ending in 'dong'. I know, pretty juvenile, but the North Koreans make it too easy. Yeah, they have an army that's supposed to be bad the bone and all that. Their leader is a joke, their civilians are starving and would probably turn on a dime if a bullet found itsway through Jong's temple. They sell their technology to anyone with 5 cents and a co signer. They just don't scare me, otherwise. I'd act like a child in need of a good spanking too if I were being ignored by the rest of the world. If the Commander in Chief could convince Ms. 'M' to let him have his 'nads back for a day, he could give the order to nail anything that pops up over the horizon and goes by the name of'Taepodong'. But he won't so we'll just have to chuckle when we hear the same tired garbage from North of the 38th Parallel. Yawn...did I hear crickets chirping?
    By Chuck @ 04/06/09 04:04:36 PMreport abuse
  • wait...wait...wait...
    Let me get this straight...

    I read in here that one of our soldiers claims to have seen WMD's in Iraq. And now people are asking for proof?

    Do you people not remember Saddam gassing how many of his own people?

    Nah, they didn't have anything...no way!

    Now, we KNOW what N. Korea is doing, yet do nothing? We KNOW what they have and are capable of, yet still do nothing?

    Bush pulled out of this mess because of the amount of flack he was getting from the Iraq war. Do you people know what kind of lashback he would have gotten had he said "ok, we're coming after you too N. Korea, get your troops ready"?

    He would have been strung up by the media and the left...

    We'd hear, "OMG, BUSH IS STARTING ANOTHER WAR! OMG, HE WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! OMG"!!!!

    Do you blame him? Hell, I don't.

    However, Obama not doing anything is a completely different story. This was a test of "WHO" we are. This was a test in which to see if we had a president that will take action against possible threats.

    Well, Prezbo, you have now made us an easier target. You have made us look like all we want to do is write people letters and wave our fingers at the baddies out there.

    So I see it like this...

    Bush hits Iraq on sanction violations and gets blasted.

    Bush decides NOT to engage N. Korea for its' violations and gets blasted.

    Obama decides NOT to engage N. Korea for its' violations and gets praised for it?



    Are you people friggin' kidding me?
    By Ted @ 04/06/09 03:32:31 PMreport abuse
  • N. Korea vs. The World
    Two points here:
    We now know that the Norks have an Incontinent Ballistic Missile - that means it can't hold it's s_ _ t together until it craps out.

    The missile was said to have "failed" over the central Pacific. Who is to say the U.S. Navy didn't blow it out of the sky, and just not tell anyone about doing it? Who would know? The only problem with that scenario is that the C-i-C Obama would not have taken such a provocative action. It might make the rest of the world not like us.

    Oh well, only 3-1/2 more years of this jerk. (Obama, I'm talking about Obama - the little dog-eater will probably live to be 90!)
    By O'Dissious @ 04/06/09 03:24:12 PMreport abuse
  • wha da hell????
    here is how i see it. we did nuttin, nuttin happened, nuttin to worry about.... this time.
    i would have engaged the missle with some of my super spooky secret stuff and not said a word.
    something some of you are forgetting. when you got a sewerside vest "we don't need no stinking missles".
    osamabama is a miserable politician and politicians are scum. he was too busy kissing a saudis a$$ to worry about NK and maybe he had some info that we don't. kinda like GWB.
    By JOHN R. @ 04/06/09 02:52:49 PMreport abuse
  • Red Leader contradicts himself
    Okay, you say we should not attack countries that are not a threat to us. (And I am going to leave the Iraq issue alone because it happened, we are there, no amount of whining is going to change that fact).

    By your own logic the only countries we should ever consider attacking are those that pose a threat to our mainland (by attack, invasion, etc.). Well go back two days and you will find that N.Korea HAS THAT POTENTIAL now.
    The missile may have gone down early in the Pacific, but that was the point, it's most likely an ICBM test. Those of you who think nothing could ever become of this need to get your head out of your ass, or you're going to be among the first to die.
    By Shifty @ 04/06/09 02:47:02 PMreport abuse
  • There's a good reason we did "nothing" :-)
    Don't be fooled - you guys don't have the whole story.

    We did a lot - not "nothing", as you may think. Did you ever hear of the RC-135 Rivet Joint? Those two aircraft were very busy collecting a trove of otherwise-unobtainable information.

    They ran circles around the launch and watched and recorded every bit of it.

    It was a very valuable exercise, for sure. Now we know everything about it - including telemetry and other communications data.

    This was a huge boon to our national security, for sure.

    Now next time, we may take it out, if we deem necessary. Armed with this new information, we'd even be able to convince the other commies out there that "taking it out" was necessary.
    By greggy boy @ 04/06/09 02:14:19 PMreport abuse
  • @ Mattlanta
    Hmm... I don't see anything there about Teachers Unions, radio/television, any of the sundry guns that didn't exist at the time...

    I guess if something isn't named explicitly then the government can do whatever they want to?? So they can kick Neal off the air huh?

    Because our founders didn't have a philosophy that could apply to every situation or anything... and they didn't allow for an amendment process to include things if necessary...

    If such is your logic we are all in trouble.
    By Elisabeth @ 04/06/09 02:08:08 PMreport abuse
  • To Red Leader
    I can tell you where it says it in the Constitution. It's in the part where it says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He can deploy troops where, and however he deems necessary. This is the same pathetic attempt to say that Bush was UnConstitutional in going to war. What a crock.
    By LiberalHater @ 04/06/09 02:04:06 PMreport abuse
  • To NavyBuckeye
    One way to know that Iraq didn't have anything might be to read the report that was given to congress before they authorized actions in Iraq. You know, the one that only one member of congress seems to have read... the only who voted against it from the start.
    By Elisabeth @ 04/06/09 02:03:49 PMreport abuse
  • Mattlanta
    Looks like you're having a conversation with yourself. You're responding to something that was never said. But then again look at the failed logic in your original post. You responded to absolutely nothing I said, but instead I guess chose to make up a pretend character and respond to that. Folks....the dangers of neo-con mysticism. Why not chose traditional conservatism over this?
    By Red Leader @ 04/06/09 02:03:41 PMreport abuse
  • Response to D.D.
    FYI, we obviously aren't liberals, as liberals have absolutely no problems policing the world. The only difference between our two parties are what parts of the world they want to police, what parts of your life they want to control, and what parts of the constitution they want to follow. They have no philosophy behind the decision.

    Those of us truly against policing the world are the last of the real conservatives! The last of those who have a philosophy which applies to every issue, not just when its convenient!
    By Elisabeth @ 04/06/09 02:00:19 PMreport abuse
  • Copyleft
    I'm telling you Copyleft. I am in such awe over your intelligence. You are absolutely a genius at your viewpoints. I am becoming a bit aroused over it, if I say so myself. I didn't think anyone could be as smart as Obama. You have proven to be even smarter. I am at a loss of words over your intellect.
    By LiberalHater @ 04/06/09 01:53:24 PMreport abuse
  • @Red Leader
    Your right - I don't see anything in the Constitution about intercontinental ballistic missiles. Dang, your logic has me all in a quandry.
    By Mattlanta @ 04/06/09 01:48:04 PMreport abuse
  • Navy Buckeye
    Did Iraq have the capacity to retaliate on on mainland American soil? With say maybe their Airforce or Navy? if the answer is no, then doesn't this raise the question of whether Iraq was actually a threat or not? Why doesn't America invade a place like China or Russia for its gross human rights violations? Why didn't America invade the Soviet Union during the cold war? Because those countries can retaliate. Iraq could not. Why not take a dart and throw it at any country on the African continent and go into there next for 'killing their own people' charges? Believe me I appreciate your service, but I just don't see the logic in what you're saying. If Iraq had weapons, did they have the capability to have them reach the U.S mainland? There are middle eastern countries who didn't like Saddam and don't want their cashflow from the U.S disturbed, why didn't they take some responsibility in handling Saddam? Why is there a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80's going around the internet? Why was the south Korean border better protected with American troops on 9/11 than the Mexico/U.S border if they've known for YEARS that islamic fascists want to get into America to do harm? Its time we stop thinking in soundbytes, and asking some real questions. It seems like you are listening to the same people that tell us other countries are a threat, while they leave the border wide open. Sorry but the 'I was in the military' thing only works for so long, especially with other soldiers coming back from there and disagreeing with what is taking place.
    By Red Leader @ 04/06/09 01:03:20 PMreport abuse
  • @ Red Leader
    My sentiments exactly....well said. Let's either follow our Constitution or dump it. The very people (talkin' to you Neal)that demand our government follow our Constitution want to cherry-pick when we should follow it and what issue.

    Many of our problems in foreign relations has been caused by our refusal to follow our Constitution when it comes to foreign affairs.

    It would be naive to think that some country wouldn't try to attack us even if we didn't get involved in foreign affairs, but if they did, THEN we can go blow the hell out of them with the full force of our military might. We should do so in a way that will tell the rest of the world, your country will pay a dear price if you allow your leaders to attack us.

    It would also be naive to think we can stop every country that wants to attack us before they do so. When we try, we only succeed at creating more enemies and are looked upon as the bad guys by the rest of the world and we still will not succeed from being attacked, only make it worse.

    We're damned if we do and damned if we don't but I'd rather defend our nation than give another country a reason to attack us.
    By Patriot til' Death @ 04/06/09 01:01:25 PMreport abuse
  • To: NavyBuckeye
    I'm sorry you had your time wasted in Iraq chasing phantom threats for the sake of Bush's ego.

    Tell us... Did you "discover" anything that constituted an actual threat to the United States? Because that would be earthshaking news that the right would be glad to seize on as post-hoc justification for this blunder.

    Sure, Iraq had tons of "weapons"... which we see in the form of roadside bombs and small-arms fire peppering our troops from close range every day.

    Tell us: How would any of those weapons have been a threat to the U.S.? Because they lacked any delivery system whatsoever for any high-grade weapons of chemical, nuclear, or biological type (which they also lacked).

    So tell us again how the Iraq invasion and occupation were necessary for United States security. I'm in the mood for a good laugh.
    By Copyleft @ 04/06/09 12:58:07 PMreport abuse
  • @NavyBuckeye
    Are you claiming justification for our actions in Iraq based on the weapons found? That seems to be the point you are dancing around so just say it. Say you think a handful of buried, rusty mustard gas cannisters justifies the lives lost and money spent while real threats were ignored and BinLaden was not brought to justice. Is that what you think, tough guy?
    By Gavin Volaire @ 04/06/09 12:53:56 PMreport abuse
  • Missle recovery
    We need to recover that rocket and see what was really on it.
    By Capt. Jack @ 04/06/09 12:46:44 PMreport abuse
  • taking your word ...
    NavyBuckeye ...

    Thank you for your service. You're a great American.

    However, that doesn't mean we should take your word as gospel to seeing WMD's with your own eyes.

    Prove you've seen what you claim to have seen. Provide pictures, locations, amounts ... some form of evidence to disprove the UN, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and every other "non-partisan, fair-and-balanced investigative journalist" who has also been in Iraq and has seen nothing.
    By Alan @ 04/06/09 12:41:04 PMreport abuse
  • By LOL @ U @ 04/06/09 11:34:51 AM
    LOL, I am aware that Wikipedia is prone to inaccuracy. So, OK, fine, how about the highly reputable Jane's Defense Weekly: http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw061009_2_n.shtml
    Or, better yet, go to the Nealz Nuze archive from October 9, 2006.
    http://boortz.com/nuze/200610/10092006.html
    Now, with that established, could we please get back to the issues instead of bickering about sources?
    By AWK 829 @ 04/06/09 12:40:51 PMreport abuse
  • Your papers please
    Is it too late to revoke the Kenyan's visa and not let that turd back in the country?
    By INS Agent @ 04/06/09 12:38:16 PMreport abuse
  • AWK vs. LOL
    AWK: Don't expect Obama to react differently than Bush.
    LOL: Ignore his final 7 years and Bush was fine.

    AWK 1
    LOL 0
    By Gavin Volaire @ 04/06/09 12:28:20 PMreport abuse
  • answering your question
    you asked: "Question: Both before and after the missile launch, can you point to one thing that Obama has done that could possibly cause anyone, let alone Kim, to believe that he will step forward unilaterally to defend this country when the threat gets severe enough?"

    Answer - Afghanistan's Troop Surge.
    Going after the people that have actually attacked us!
    By Alan @ 04/06/09 12:25:13 PMreport abuse
  • Well, Well ...
    Copyleft is close to being correct this time.

    Now, it's my understanding, (thanks to BO for that phrase) that Bush and the UN issued a ban on Nucular testing by N.Korea.

    So, since we all know the UN is useless...Bush did nothing.
    By Don @ 04/06/09 12:16:10 PMreport abuse
  • To Copyleft....
    I want to know how you know that Iraq didn't have anything? Oh...CNN said they didn't, UN said nothing was found after invasion but empty weapon storage....yep I understand you now.

    Iraq had weapons. They had plenty. I know we destroyed quite a few weapons conveys between 1998 and 2003. I know we did...why because I was there. But since CNN and your fellow ilk didn't report on it....it didn't happen.

    Wake up and realize the the UN only gives a darn about the US's opinion because it wants our money. Isn't if funny that it is headed by the small insignificant players in the world. These folks get rich of our tax payer dollars. All the while passing faux sanctions that are never upheld by anyone but us and Britian. Sometimes Germany. China doesn't give a crap about the UN....they will do what is needed to further thier own people's prosperity. Which is what we should do...but hence we have people like you who use feelings as reasoning.

    Copyleft you and those like you will be the first in line to jump behind people like me when it comes time for your little pansy butt to be protected.

    Luckily for you, people like me are wiling to die for our and our children's freedom. Because if it was up to you......picture Poland and Germany in the late 1930's.....
    By NavyBuckeye @ 04/06/09 12:07:01 PMreport abuse
  • What if...
    NK test fires a missile and the headlines are about how the Italian government "silenced" a scientist that warned of a possible earthquake.

    HUH?

    Go look at the pictures from Italy, then imagine what just one of those Korean missiles could do with a moderate sized warhead...then all you libs can tell us what we did wrong about not preventing it.
    By Roger @ 04/06/09 12:01:54 PMreport abuse
  • The Chinese and Russians are watching...
    Bet Taiwan doesn't survive Obama's fecklessness.
    By Jimmy Dean's a Sausage Queen @ 04/06/09 11:57:47 AMreport abuse
  • OPPORTUNITY LOST
    Never let a crisis go to waste, except this one. This would have been a perfect opportunity for a phase 2 test of the Mid-infrared Advanced Chemical Laser. It would appear as a mechanical malfunction and let the world know that North Korea's rocket was unreliable.

    Best of all it would have been hard to prove and the evidence would have been blended in with the explosion.
    By John Wayne @ 04/06/09 11:56:02 AMreport abuse
  • Mattlanta
    Nowhere have you indicated in what you wrote where the constitution gives the authority for the U.S to play world police or tell N. Korea where or when it can test weapons. Adhering to the U.S constitution has nothing to do with isolationism or appeasement. Please hit the history books yourself to find out about a foreign policy based on free trade, travel and logic (all while protecting and defending America). Your way hasn't worked and is bankrupting the country and causing blowback. Ask yourself....does America test weapons in other people's countries against thier will? Yep. So then what qualifies America to ask people not to do precisely what they are doing? If you were the only person in the room without a gun...wouldn't you want one yourself?

    p.s you are using soundbyte words from the same people who tell us America is threatened but then refuse to secure the border and get all illegals out.
    By Red Leader @ 04/06/09 11:55:42 AMreport abuse
  • Oh no! Not Hans Brix!
    By steve @ 04/06/09 11:53:52 AMreport abuse
  • Please don't hand me that crap
    This one time that I have to agree that this was nothining more then a test firing. The closest U.S. soil they can hit is Alaska. (Talk about pi**ing off Greenpeace).

    But you Libs don't need to start all your chest thumping about us policing the world. It dosen't seem to bother you when the UN decides to use us to do it. And why should we stop them from doing this, why would you take a sling shot away from a mean kid?

    Because if you don't, some thing is going to get broken or hurt or something is going to die!
    By D.D. @ 04/06/09 11:53:16 AMreport abuse
  • Idiotic!!!
    This is what happens when you elect a man that has no executive experience. Just as Carter did he's going to try the peace at any price approach. Never has worked, never will.... The only way to deal with a tyrant is to in no way appease them and follow through with your threats, just as Reagan did with the USSR.
    By Timmy @ 04/06/09 11:37:19 AMreport abuse
  • @ AWK
    You say you don't have the answer, but use Wiki as the information source of your post? Are you serious? Wiki? lol @ you!


    Bush took no crap off anyone his first year in office.
    Obama has made us look weak. He made himself and his administration look weak.

    Expect everyone to test our metal now.

    Get better sources for your information for future reference. Wiki is hardly the place to get credible info.

    DUR!
    By LOL @ U @ 04/06/09 11:34:51 AMreport abuse
  • NK Missle
    Obama did the only thing he could do, which was nothing.
    Unless it can be proven in a court of law that NK is being totally untruthful about its objectives, that Govt. has the right to try to develop space technology.
    That being said, at the first provable sign of nuclear missile activity, Kim should be taken out by whatever means necessary. Until such time, the best thing is to simply ignore his little announcements and threatening postures.
    That's all it is: posturing.
    It's all "Hey World! Look at me ! I'm important and SIGNIFICANT."
    And the world plays right into his hands.
    By N W Johnson @ 04/06/09 11:32:38 AMreport abuse
  • North Korea
    Looks like we now have a Monty Python foreign policy, Stop! or we'll say stop again!
    By nkey @ 04/06/09 11:31:51 AMreport abuse
  • for the 'so what' folks...
    Wernher von Braun once said that the reason the American missile program was ahead of the rest of the world was that "we’ve had 15 more years of experience in making mistakes and learning from them." Every launch is a learning opportunity. More launches, more learning. And more "hero" status with fellow wacko leaders...which leads to more people buying his missiles, which leads to more money for research...

    Here's the irony; Kim Jong Il's team will learn from their mistakes, while we appear doomed to repeat the mistakes of isolationism and/or appeasement. Neither work. Read your history.
    By Mattlanta @ 04/06/09 11:31:21 AMreport abuse
  • Well...
    Since North Korea has 'called Obama's bluff,' he could always do exactly what Bush did when they called HIS bluff.

    Which was, if you'll recall, also nothing. And just look what happened! (Hint: nothing.)
    By Copyleft @ 04/06/09 10:55:21 AMreport abuse
  • N. Korea
    Boortz, you fell for the terrorist threat, even though our boarders were never controlled. Now, you are falling for the Korean missle threat. What an usefull idiot.
    By jt @ 04/06/09 10:46:32 AMreport abuse
  • N.Korea
    The islamic fundamentalist scare is wearing thin. If there ever had been a real threat to our country, don't you think our goverment would have at least tried to control our boarders. Don't be such a scared idiot Boortz.
    By jt @ 04/06/09 10:43:19 AMreport abuse
  • Israel shuddered
    Well, at least Israel knows now that they're going to be pretty much on their own when it comes time for Iran to flex their nuclear muscles.
    I used to think that we'd have Israel's back no matter what, but now I realize that without basketball courts in every Israeli backyard, teleprompters in every Israeli living room, they're screwed. At least they'll go down fighting, and God bless 'em for that.
    I never realized that Team America was actually a documentary - right down to "the letter".
    By shuttin down @ 04/06/09 10:40:53 AMreport abuse
  • Missile shootdown?
    Who says we (the US) did nothing? There's a 747 with a very powerful laser than can burn a hole into the side of a missile. Doesn't take much to bring one down and it's hard to detect. Where was that 74 2 days ago?
    By Carlos @ 04/06/09 10:26:42 AMreport abuse
  • North Korea rising
    BO still thinks everything is a basketball game.
    By Laughing @ 04/06/09 10:15:05 AMreport abuse
  • Missile Launch
    As usual, I agree with the 'Talkmaster' on everything but foreign policy.

    I don't understand why we should do anything. It is inevitable that North Korea, and other enemies, will eventually have the technology to fire nuclear weapons. If we make it our goal to prevent this the fighting will never end. And for what? Who are we to tell a sovereign nation what they may or may not do? Of course if there is a real threat that they are planning to use it again the United States we should take action. But we should not needlessly intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations. At this point I would say it is needless as North Korean technology is pathetic and of no threat to us.

    Sadly, I fear my own government more! I am far more concerned about bank nationalization, and universal health care (among other things)than I am of NK missiles. They will lead to our demise much sooner than North Korea will.
    By Elisabeth @ 04/06/09 10:13:25 AMreport abuse
  • Korea in constitution?
    Checked out the constitution in reference to this article. Didn't see anything in there that gives America the authority to police N.Korea. It simply is not up to America to tell other countries when and where they can test weapons, particularly if America is testing weapons in other people's countries. Would Americans want Venezuela to start testing weapons on American soil? Nope. Neal your frame of reference is wrong on this. Let Japan,South Korea and China deal with N. Korea. Japan and N.Korea are historic enemies anyway. If America is already 11 trillion in debt where does it get the cash to police the planet? By increasing inflation and punishing the tax payer? Let's get the American border secured,illegals out and troops back home from everywhere in the world that America is playing world police to the tune of bankruptcy and 11 trillion dollar debt. It makes no sense whatsoever to keep talking about how Obama is robbing us blind(which he is) and how America is in debt when you want to go around the world spending billions on interventions that have nothing to do with America or its security. Get the American military out of other people's countries and let them start taking some personal responsibility for themselves instead of relying on welfare from the American taxpayer. Fiscal conservatism and the neo-con foreign policy are simply polar opposities. Wake up. Let's get back to some pro-America, America first, old school Calvin Coolidge conservatism.America literally can't afford the left wing govt expansion mentality of the neo-con Bush/Mccain/Cheney/Patriot Act types.
    By Red Leader @ 04/06/09 10:03:17 AMreport abuse
  • NK is a joke.
    This missile launch is probably going to humiliate North Korea rather than embolden them. They just demonstrated to the world how pathetic and utterly useless their technology is. In fact, the only significant customer who buys their missiles is Pakistan, and that's only because the Pakistanis need a bunch of cheap pieces of junk missiles to supplement their much better missiles aimed at India.

    We should also keep in mind that America is not the only country with an interest in making sure North Korea doesn't pose a threat, and we are also not the only country with the capability to do something about it. South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan certainly have much more of a vested interest than we do in keeping North Korea from doing any harm. These countries (except for maybe South Korea) also have the capability to respond with force if necessary.

    This North Korean issue just shouldn't be such a high priority. There are other more credible threats to deal with than a missile that doesn't work. Besides, it may benefit our national security more in the long run if we let the Japanese deal with this themselves. Japan is continuing to move closer to abandoning Article 9 altogether and remilitarizing. A robust Japanese military with sustainable force projection capabilities outside of the home islands would certainly be in America's national security interests.
    By Matt Cole @ 04/06/09 10:02:15 AMreport abuse
  • What threat?
    Neal already said the rocket (sorry, the DEADLY MISSILE) had a range of 4,100 miles.

    Why, exactly, do we need to respond "unilaterally" to something that doesn't threaten us? As I recall, we took that stance with Iraq, which also posed zero threat to the U.S. And that turned out SO well.

    Oh well, as long as the idiots are kept panicking, I guess it's Mission Accomplished....
    By Copyleft @ 04/06/09 09:55:55 AMreport abuse
  • UN As Our Outsourced Security
    Excellent observation - Obamessiah is using the UN as our outsourced security. It will take the American people being outraged before he actually DOES something; and before his ivory tower is shaken, it will take an almost unanimous uproar from us. And that's not going to happen until a nuke is let loose here.
    It's sad, but I don't believe an attack on Israel will bring the outrage necessary.
    I sincerely hope I'm wrong about all this...but I doubt it.
    By Tom in Corvallis OR @ 04/06/09 09:55:24 AMreport abuse
  • NK Missile launch
    So, the Coward-in-Chief didn't do anything about the missile launch? What a surprise!! Now we're going to send the UN after the gargoyle... I bet he's about to poop in his little pants. What a farce our foreign policy is.
    By Tony Williams @ 04/06/09 09:52:41 AMreport abuse
  • North Korea Missile
    WELCOME BACK, CARTER!
    By Randy @ 04/06/09 09:39:51 AMreport abuse
  • Technically...
    We are still at war with North Korea. We just have a very long cease fire agreement. So, IMHO shooting the missile down would have been well within our rights. North Korea launching the missile should have been seen as an act of war by the US of A and the rest of the world. The pussification of America continues.
    By Josh @ 04/06/09 09:36:30 AMreport abuse
  • Libya Lite?
    Doesn't the UN sound a bit like Libya Lite and it's line of death in hte gulf of Sidra????
    By Dan @ 04/06/09 09:35:31 AMreport abuse
  • team america
    Its just like the movie team america. The UN will be angry and send a letter to kji telling him how angry they are.
    By andy @ 04/06/09 09:32:32 AMreport abuse
  • Obama the Coward
    This was the 1st test that Biden warned us about. Obama has now been proven to be weak. A true "sheep" & the other "wolves" will be testing him as well now. We are now going to be tested by all the nut cases, & the next test will be much more serious. Even if this missle had a warhead in it, & he new it was heading OUR WAY. NoBama would have done nothing. He would have watched it takeoff, land, & kill Americans, & destroy America. Then he will whine like a baby to the UN. The UN is not going to do %$#!, as they hate us. We will pay dearly for this weakness one day. Presbo is not only a radical socialist, he is also now been proven to be a wimp & a loser. Lets start the impeachment process immediately, or we will lose this new war to North Korea, Iran, or China! How far will this go?
    Korean War Veterans for Patriotism & the Fair Tax!!!
    By Patriots for Impeachment - Korean War Veterans @ 04/06/09 09:32:05 AMreport abuse
  • The Mouse
    We just showed our cards to the rest of the world...BIG on talk and soft on action. Obama showed his cards to the US by whining and crying to the useless UN. Did any one truly expect a different outcome from Obama and/or the UN? If nations continually ignore the UN resolutions, is there a good reason to continue that body? If you are anti-American, now is the time to start salivating!
    By Michael in GA @ 04/06/09 09:31:46 AMreport abuse
  • "W" did nothing when North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon in October 2006
    So y'all condemn Obama for "doing nothing". OK, what would your boy "W" have done? In October, 2006, North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon underground, in flagrant violation of its agreements. What did "W" do? Pretty much nothing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test for more info.

    The point is, geopolitics is complicated. There is a very cimplicated relationship with China (a North Korean ally, but which behind the scenes is annoyed with its temeperamental little brother) in play here.

    And don't forget the DPRK is currently holding two American citizens in prison (journalists who were captured on the North Korea - Chinese border a couple of weeks ago).

    I don't have the answer, but I don't think the answer to everything can be "go bomb something". It just ain't that simple.
    By AWK 829 @ 04/06/09 09:30:30 AMreport abuse
  • no stones Uh-bama
    "Is Obama now outsourcing our national security? " rhetorical question, right Neal?
    By strange1 @ 04/06/09 09:28:58 AMreport abuse
  • Just Say No!
    I guess it's ok for Gargoyle to give the U.N. and Obama the finger and get away with shooting off a missle. To bad he didn't require a prayer said before lift off, that would of really pissed off the world leaders.
    By DarrellH @ 04/06/09 09:21:43 AMreport abuse
  • Missle Test
    As an American, it is time for me to be outraged (we are never outraged enough).

    The impotent UN will just rattle their sabers, threaten unenforceable sanctions that really sound bad, but end up doing nothing of consequence.

    However, the UN will at least be able to claim the reacted and responded (which is what they are supposed to do) and be off the hook.

    Please revoke their lease in our country and send them to some other place.
    PRESBO seems to be big on Antarctica lately - send them there.
    By Gargoyle @ 04/06/09 09:17:33 AMreport abuse
  • multi-stage booster
    The administration & its media direct your attention to the fact that the payload dropped into the drink. What they divert your attention from is that the NKs sucessfully launched via multiple booster stages. That's bravo foxtrot delta in the world of ballistic missiles.

    Now obama is talking about deploying missile defense in Europe as long as it's 'cost effective' and 'proven'. That's leftist code word for 'we intend to scuttle missile defense & use those dollars for social welfare'. Of course he was speaking (or doublespeaking, technically) before a Czech audience so he makes it sound as if he's all for honoring the agreements that Bush arranged for European missile defense.
    By Mike @ 04/06/09 09:16:19 AMreport abuse
  • What now?
    Since NK called Obama's bluff, who's next? Iran with a nuclear war head? Because of a failure to act and the world sat by and wacthed us do nothing will enable other countries to exploit our weakness, Obama.
    By David @ 04/06/09 08:55:37 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement