The G8 Press conference we didn't see...

President Bush walks up to the podium, stumbling only slightly as he climbs the platform stairs. "Good morning ladies and gentlemen," he smirks. "Beautiful day today, so go easy, won'tcha."

The press clamors for attention. President Bush points his finger, "Helen."

"Mr. Bush, "How do you feel about the latest news that global warming is speeding up ocean waves? "

"Sounds like good surfin to me." Bush snickers, press follows.

Podhoretz is a Punk

That's something a (rather knowledgeable) child might say of the crackpot neocon who was afforded a full page op-ed calling for 'preemptive strikes' on Iran in one of America's (formerly) most respected papers -- and quite appropriately considering Norman's thought processes seem to mirror a child's impulsive actions, reflexive bullying, and irrational logic.

But is he wrong?

Of course he is, and yet, not so long ago, nearly half of all Americans agreed that a preemptive strike on Iran would be desirable.

In April 2006, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that "despite Iraq, Americans don't reject strikes against a nuclear Iran. By 48%-42%, the public says U.S. should join coalition to attack Iran's nuclear capability if Tehran approaches development of a weapon."

Are there that many punks in our great nation?

Now this is a year later and the 06 elections as well as more recent polls regarding our occupation of Iraq have certainly indicated that Americans are fed up with this crap.

But what would it take to swing them back the other way? How much effort would it take for the administration and it's minions to convince the public that "Tehran [is approaching] development of a [nuclear] weapon"?

Now that North Korea has confirmed nukes, the U.S. and South Korea have finally decided to create a plan on how to deal with the situation.

According to the report, the United States is considering a plan against North Korea to neutralize Pyongyang's nuclear capability with overwhelming use of the U.S. Air Force.

Under the envisaged plan, U.S. combat aircraft and bombers... would conduct "surgical strikes'' on major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, training sites, and intelligence and communication facilities in the North instead of ground forces advancing into the North, the report said.

Currently, the Operations Plan -- OPLAN 5027, the joint U.S. contingency plan with South Korea, accounts for a conflict involving conventional weapons:

[Alternate Title: Bush Weakness Empowers North Korea, Iran, and Russia to Action]

International leaders have begun to notice a widening crevice between the Bush Administration's persistent gunboat diplomacy and their realistic ability to follow through.

They see that President Bush has wedged the U.S. Military -- and thus U.S. national security -- between Iraq and a hard place.

As long as we're strapped to Iraq, they know that Bush's actions have impaled both the quality and quantity of America's diplomatic and military options.

And now they're taking advantage of that weakness.

Eliminating U.S. Options

When the Bush Administration first invaded Iraq, they believed the incursion would largely fit the template for which our current military was designed -- based on the belief that extended combat operations were an anachronism. More precisely they expected:

In case you missed my 14,000 word analysis yesterday, "How Bush Created a Nuclear North Korea", here's a special component of which everyone should be acutely aware as we head into the November elections -- heads spinning from the laughably FALSE claims that Republicans are even remotely more capable of protecting America than Democrats.

Indeed, Bush, through his continued embrace with nuclear dictator Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, has done more to compromise US National Security than practically any other entity on Earth.

When Bush & Co. allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, Osama scurried off to the Pakistani tribal lands -- a place he knew would be safe since Musharraf refused to enter, or allow others (i.e. the U.S.) to enter those tribal areas. Harboring public enemy #1 should be reason enough for the U.S. to blacklist Pakistan, but not for George "Dead or Alive" Bush. Months later, Bush, in an egregious act of appeasement, was allegedly able to 'cut a deal' with the dictator that allowed U.S. forces in those areas (more on that below the fold).

[[This is "Part II". Be sure to read "Part I" first and please consolidate any comments in Part I as well. Thanks.]]

We continue with Step 63...

Step 63) - 08/30/2003

North Korea announces that the Beijing talks convinced it of the need for nuclear weapons.

"North Korea angrily dismissed last week's six-nation talks in Beijing, saying it was now even more convinced of the need to strengthen its nuclear arsenal... The gathering was 'not only useless but harmful in every aspect,' a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said... 'We are now more convinced than before that we have no other alternatives but to continue strengthening our nuclear deterrence as a self-defensive measure to protect our sovereignty'... North Korea repeated during the talks its long-standing demand for a non-aggression pact with the United States, which it accuses of wanting to invade. It also demanded the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington before it would abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Much more over the bump...

(Warning: This post is long. Damn long! That's because there are heaps of evidence that show Bush, not Clinton, is reponsible for the nuclear debacle we face today with North Korea. Pace yourself, but please be sure to take in every word. The truth is always worth it.)

"Why should I care about North Korea?"

 -- President George W. Bush

Blame Clinton?

Yeah right!

Clearly, the Bush Administration is, by far, the causal factor in Kim Jong Il's entry into Earth's 'Nukular' Club. They can blame Clinton all they want. At least he did something about this rising calamity. In 1994, the Clinton Administration reached an agreement with the DPRK that successfully froze North Korea's nuclear production for the next eight years.

Bush, on the other hand has offered NOTHING except provocation and motivation for the DPRK to invest in nuclear weapons. Although many factors led to this devastating milestone, the buck unambiguously stops with the Bush administration.

To begin, after Secretary of State Colin Powell said the administration will "pick up where President Clinton left off," Bush took less than 24 hours to declare that the Bush Administration negotiations will take a different tone.

Enter the Axis of Evil!  -- a clever 'new direction' to effective diplomacy, no doubt.

That moniker has served as a powerful icon for the times -- but not quite the way Bush and Co. had planned. Instead, it has come to represent this administration's bold contempt for meaningful diplomacy and staunch dedication to asserting military force in a world that can narry afford the elevated state of militaristic provocation.

Remember the last time North Korea was dominating the headlines?

It was December of 2005. The DPRK was decrying as a 'Declarations of war' the latest comments of the US ambassador to South Korea, labeling him the 'worst ambassador in history'.

Not surprisingly, that wasn't the first time Pyongyang had accused the US of implicit declarations of war. But to understand the motivation for such extreme actions, the full saga must unfold before us.

Enter Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush... diplomacy departs... chaos ensues.

"...The danger of war is snowballing, owing to the extreme US moves to isolate and stifle the [North Korean Government], and threats of pre-emptive strikes"

So where do we stand right now and how did we come to this unfortunate place in history?

 Analyzing the real reason behind Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's just completed MidEast trip, the BBC News asks, Why did Condoleezza Rice come to Israel and the West Bank earlier this week?

And concludes:

. . .military action against Iran is now being very seriously considered in Washington.

[This article originally appeared in it's essential form as a diary at DailyKos .]

Behind the recent Declarations of war and accusations that the US ambassador to South Korea is the 'worst ambassador in history', lies a foreboding past rife with distrust, threats, and provocation.

Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time Pyongyang has accused the US of implicit declarations of war. But to understand the motivation for such extreme actions, the full saga must unfold before us.

Enter Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush... diplomacy departs... chaos ensues.

"...The danger of war is snowballing, owing to the extreme US moves to isolate and stifle the [North Korean Government], and threats of pre-emptive strikes"

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon
To the UN General Assembly
Monday September 27, 2004

Over past years, as the Bush administration has focused America's resources on the Iraq strawman, a shadow has been growing in the east. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (aka: North Korea) has been fueling it's potential response to what Kim Jong Il feels is an increasing threat to the survival of their Republic. It's now believed that Pyongyang possesses at least two nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them to targets ranging from South Korea and Japan to the western coast of the continental US.

The time is long past for this issue to take center stage. So let's do our part by establishing the record between the Bush administration and North Korea.

Where do we stand right now?

This is "Part II". Be sure to read "Part I" first and please consolidate any comments in Part I as well. Thanks.

We continue with Step 64...

Step 64) - 09/03/2003

Bush's credibility was further eroded when it was revealed that he signed an Iraq war plan on August 29, 2002 showing clear premeditation and proving that 9/11 had zero influence on the administration's plans to invade a sovereign nation that in no way threatened the safety of the United States.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush insisted that war could be avoided if only Saddam would disarm. But according to a secret report from the Pentagon, on Aug. 29, 2002:

Mr. Bush "approves Iraq goals, objectives and strategy... That was eight months before the first bomb was dropped and six months before he asked the U.N. Security Council for a war mandate that he never received."

Three months earlier (late May), the Pentagon began a series of war exercises called "Prominent Hammer" to judge whether the force could win in Iraq and still maintain a deterrent in other theaters, such as South Korea. (now we know that we cannot as thousands of troops are slated to be extracted from the peninsula)

Much more over the bump...