A Timeline Of Obama’s Limp-Wristed Response To North Korea

Courtesy of Dr. Sanity:

TIMELINE OF OBAMA’S TOUGH RESPONSE TO NORTH KOREA:
April 3 – North Korea Launches Rocket to test missile system but pretends it is a satellite launch
April 5 – Obama says North Korea should avoid more provacative actions
April 5 – Ambassador Susan Rice says the US will work with UN for “appropriate” response
April 5 – UN Security Council Adjourns without response to North Korea
April 5 – North Korea warns that any UN censure will result in severe consequences
April 6 – China says UN should be “prudent” in dealing with North Korea
April 6 – Krauthammer calls UN response “a farce”
April 7 – Obama and Gates Gut the Military
April 7 – Forget North Korea, Obama team readies for confrontation with…Israel
(Israel, for the uninformed and the anti-semitic left , is a US ally)
April 8 – ????

I full expect North Korea to fall in line any day now. By the way, only 27% of Americans think the United Nations is an ally of the United States.
Discussion question: As Iran takes American hostages, and North Korea test fires missiles at us, is there a point where we’re going to have to admit that Dick Cheney was right when he said Obama would embolden our enemies and make us less safe?
Heck, is there a point at which we’re going to have to admit that Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden was right when he said essentially the same thing?

Tags:


«
»
  • http://aresay.blogspot.com/ Aresay

    The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    The picture on the front was perfect.

  • Hannitized

    Robert,

    Pure bullshit,…I find it interesting that you make all sorts of excuses for Clinton’s inaction, even after repeated provocation…

    Are you saying my justification is bullshit, yes or no? Why do you avoid my logic and reasoning every-time you ask for it?

  • andophiroxia

    Look, you have been trying to pull this kind of phony equivalence crap ever since you started commenting on this blog, and I can only conclude, despite countless schooling from me and others, that you just don’t get it. You are simply ignorant about how your thinking is completely wrong in this regard.

    Yeah much like how a lot of the feminists think that men are evil rapists but when Clinton did a bunch of shit that embodied that type of stereotype they pretended to not see anything.

    I seriously think he lives through a stereotype. He’s not lucid, I think.

  • robert108

    Oh, Knobert, I believe that there is a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense, whether or not you decide that you are going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every attacker on a kind of tit-for-tat basis.

    Pure bullshit, combined with juvenile namecalling. Are you a sockpuppet for the weird little groupie?
    I find it interesting that you make all sorts of excuses for Clinton’s inaction, even after repeated provocation from AQ, and yet insist President Bush should have acted quickly and decisively on a general statement of opinion.
    Why the double standard? Politics?

  • andophiroxia

    Actually Freedom of Assembly is actually guaranteed in the Constitution, plus communists want to destroy, disrupt, ignore, monopolize, and quash that right. I think the news fits the bill.

    You call yourself a professor.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    I would have listened to Richard Clarke. But…..Bush didn’t do that, did he?

    Richard Clarke is a bumbling idiot and a malcontent.

  • Hannitized

    Robert,

    Awaiting your reply. But I know I won’t get it. Because every-time I smack you with the truth, you ignore it.

  • Hannitized

    Didn’t the attack on the WTC in ‘93, combined with all the attacks on US interests around the world for the eight years of the Clinton regime call for any action?

    Pshaw!!

    Oh, Knobert, I believe that there is a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense, whether or not you decide that you are going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every attacker on a kind of tit-for-tat basis.

  • andophiroxia

    Please answer all the questions asked of you in the thread. They were quite valid. So, what would you have done and why?

  • Hannitized

    Oh, and a memorandum is not a “statement”. You idiot.

    You keep getting caught lying and using words you don’t understand. Every time you lie, I smack you with the truth.

  • robert108

    You mean MEMO……from the Czar of Terrorism????

    The statement was in a memo. Duh. There was no “Czar of terrorism”; that’s an Obama construction. You lie again.

    Your argument was that President Bush should have responded in a very specific way to a general statement that contained no actionable intelligence, but Clinton was OK for not responding to eight years of direct provocation by AQ, including a direct attack on the WTC in ’93, because of some bullshit you muttered about “strategy” and “tactics”, which was a completely inaccurage equivalence.
    I refuted your contention; I didn’t “avoid” it.
    Look, you have been trying to pull this kind of phony equivalence crap ever since you started commenting on this blog, and I can only conclude, despite countless schooling from me and others, that you just don’t get it. You are simply ignorant about how your thinking is completely wrong in this regard.
    Thanks for asking, btw.

  • Hannitized

    Bush makes Clarke look like Einstein.

  • Mickey

    Why Obama Isn’t Worried About North Korea

  • Hannitized

    Look Robert, there was no way to reinvent the way intelligence was collected and shared between agencies within and without the United States during Clinton’s presidency and during Bush’s. The problem was that for a country that had not been attacked on its territory in a major way in almost 200 years, it was hard to respond more severely than Clinton had.

    Hell, why didn’t Bush do ANYTHING? Clinton at least make strikes, Bush….was ho-hum, do nothing. Even after he knew there was the Chole and WTC attacks.

    Why the double standard?

    Your argument was that President Bush should have responded in a very specific way to a general statement that contained no actionable intelligence,

    What are you talking about? There was an unheeded August 6, 2001, intelligence memorandum that contained specific information that airlines would be used by terrorists as missiles against targets in the United States. What more did he need?

    Why didn’t he do something, anything other than ignore?

    The Bush administration did a worse job than the Clinton administration on terrorism and failed to take advantage of plans produced under Mr. Clinton to fight Al Qaeda.

    Bush did nothing until there as a massive hole in the ground. Two of them.

  • Hannitized

    I didn’t “avoid” it, I refuted it.

    Robert, don’t use words you don’t understand. What did you prove “wrong”, about my reasoning and response?

    You excused Clinton for ignoring many direct inputs from AQ, but you excoriate President Bush for not immediately acting on a very general statement.

    Statement? You mean MEMO……from the Czar of Terrorism????

    And that is not “refuting”, that is calling me a hypocrite. That is NOT refuting.

    Do you have a problem with my justification or not?

    Every time you ask for answers, I smack you with the truth.

  • Hannitized

    Robert fumbles:

    There was no “Czar of terrorism”; that’s an Obama construction. You lie again.

    You lie again!! Every time you lie, I smack you with the truth!!

    Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush Administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush Administration’s attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the decision to go to war with Iraq. Clarke has received criticism in turn for various reasons, including his strong disagreements with the Bush Administration.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

    Heh!! Ain’t that a bitch?

    because of some bullshit you muttered about “strategy” and “tactics”, which was a completely inaccurage equivalence.

    So you are telling me that my argument about strategy and tactics was bullshit?

    …while concocting fantastic justifications and rationalizations for Clinton’s real limp-wristed response to eight years of AQ attacks and provocations, which included a direct attack on the US.[/b

    ]

    Look Robert, there was no way to reinvent the way intelligence was collected and shared between agencies within and without the United States during Clinton’s presidency and during Bush’s. The problem was that for a country that had not been attacked on its territory in a major way in almost 200 years, it was hard to respond more severely than Clinton had.

    Hell, why didn’t Bush do ANYTHING? Clinton at least make strikes, Bush….was ho-hum, do nothing. Even after he knew there was the Chole and WTC attacks.

    Why the double standard?

    Your argument was that President Bush should have responded in a very specific way to a general statement that contained no actionable intelligence,

    What are you talking about? There was an unheeded August 6, 2001, intelligence memorandum that contained specific information that airlines would be used by terrorists as missiles against targets in the United States. What more did he need?

    Why didn’t he do something, anything other than ignore?

    The Bush administration did a worse job than the Clinton administration on terrorism and failed to take advantage of plans produced under Mr. Clinton to fight Al Qaeda.

    Bush did nothing until there as a massive hole in the ground. Two of them.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

    Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, NKorea, Syria and various proxies of the above will be on the march. Russia and China will be more subtle but are licking their chops at taking bites out of US at every turn.

    Your post drips with excitement. You just can’t wait to nuke something. Anything.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/homosexuality_is_wrong_-_a_compendium move_zig

    Andy,

    Don’t mind Hann.

    He’s just upset that the Village People didn’t include a Surfer character in its line-up.

  • andophiroxia

    Why Obama Isn’t Worried About North Korea

    Yeah the Clintons did that with Kim Jong Il and nuclear power. Funny about that. They just had to go on a promise that they would only use that for peace.

    I guess they needed something more solid, maybe a “promise ring” perhaps?

  • robert108

    That is more like Bush’s limp wristed response to the memo that said: Al Qaida plans to attack America on US soil.

    What would you have done with such a general warning, H? Didn’t the attack on the WTC in ’93, combined with all the attacks on US interests around the world for the eight years of the Clinton regime call for any action? Would it have been better if the memo had said: “Clinton’s wall of separation has allowed AQ pilots to enter US and to train to fly airliners undetected.” have been better?
    The only thing “limp wristed” was Clinton’s pandering to AQ for eight years. He wouldn’t take OBL and wouldn’t launch a missile strike on him when he had the chance.

  • djer

    Let’s see what Bush did, oh yeah….. he called North Korea a name.

    Rob, the only one who is limpwristed here is you. You like to talk a big show about what the Obama administration is doing in the foreign policy arena.

    If you think Cheney is so right, Rob, pick up a gun and join up. Put your tough talk into real action. Nah, I didn’t think so. You’ll just hang out in your safe little basement reeling about Obama on your little home radio show. I get it!

  • Hannitized

    Robert refuses to answer the questions…..

  • robert108

    Oh yes! Your original mistake was to describe President Bush as “limp-wristed”(an obvious attempt to distract from Obama’s limp-wristed response to the Somali pirates attack on our ship) for his response to a statement that contained no actionable intel, while concocting fantastic justifications and rationalizations for Clinton’s real limp-wristed response to eight years of AQ attacks and provocations, which included a direct attack on the US.

    Got it?

  • Hannitized

    Robert108 does not have the stones to respond to the facts that prove he is wrong in his conclusions and argument.

  • Hannitized
    That is more like Bush’s limp wristed response to the memo that said: Al Qaida plans to attack America on US soil.

    What would you have done with such a general warning, H?

    I would have listened to Richard Clarke. But…..Bush didn’t do that, did he?

  • Hannitized

    I didn’t “avoid” it, I refuted it.

    Robert, don’t use words you don’t understand. What did you prove “wrong”, about my reasoning and response?

    You excused Clinton for ignoring many direct inputs from AQ, but you excoriate President Bush for not immediately acting on a very general statement.

    Statement? You mean MEMO……from the Czar of Terrorism????

    And that is not “refuting”, that is calling me a hypocrite. That is NOT refuting.

    Do you have a problem with my justification or not?

  • http://norseberserker.blogspot.com/ Rugby Reader

    Nope. Dick Cheney is a lying sack of turd.

    I said the same about Bush previously.

  • robert108

    Why do you avoid my logic and reasoning every-time you ask for it?

    I didn’t “avoid” it, I refuted it. You excused Clinton for ignoring many direct inputs from AQ, but you excoriate President Bush for not immediately acting on a very general statement. Where was OBL going to attack the US? When was the attack going to occur? What form was the attack going to take? Clarke’s note completely lacked actionable information.

  • Hannitized

    That is more like Bush’s limp wristed response to the memo that said: Al Qaida plans to attack America on US soil.

  • dragon poker

    lmao
    Hannitized said:

    Oh, Knobert

    knobert said:

    Are you a sockpuppet for the weird little groupie?

    I dont capitalize the word knobert. It would show too much respect for the bully troll dipshit.
    Hannitized, ya have more respect for it(knobert) than I do.

    By the way, both Clinton and Bush failed to deal with AQ before 911. They both failed to recognize the true scope of the problem until it was too late. They both deserve some blame. Most of the blame of course should be directed towards AQ itself.
    Carry on!

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus Last Best Hope

    this will not improve but worsen…every nation saw Obama bow to the Saudi king…the signal has been given

    what follows will be a series of advances by our enemies and a lot of retreating by US…our friends will try to wait out this Obama playing at being POTUS disaster but the fact is, every Western nation will scramble to save their butts as the once feared “American response” is no more.

    Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, NKorea, Syria and various proxies of the above will be on the march. Russia and China will be more subtle but are licking their chops at taking bites out of US at every turn.

    Only our friend Israel gives our enemies pause…and maybe Israel can buy US enough time to regroup under a Petraeus Administration.

    Pray for the American we once knew…it’s very much at risk.

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    Robin Williams (regarding bobbies):

    Stop! Or we’ll say stop again…

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    OMG. The mainstream media won’t issue commie propaganda so you guys need to. “Be very afraid of the communists.” Right guys? How much do the DPRK commies pay you?

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    Right on schedule with the two wrongs make a right defense, Handjob comes flitting in.

    Aren’t you supposed to be out buying Minoxidil?

    Undeniable fact: Bush had the miscreants fearing us and spending much time and energy campaigning against us politically to forestall action against them. Under Obama no such thing is true. North Korea has unsheathed their saber and pointed it at us. Iran rattles theirs. Cuba openly gives us the finger. Venezuela rants every day. The only thing you can manage Hannah is that weak ass deflection.

    Deconstruct for us how doing nothing about North Korea is to the advantage of the US, South Korea, Japan, and China. Please, feel free to try. We all know you won’t, but it has to be asked.

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    You haven’t smacked anyone with anything Hannah but your own nonsense. Are you going to tell us all how doing nothing about North Korean provocation is a good thing already?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    You guys really insist on issuing propaganda for the DPRK, don’t you? Also, there’s this

    April 7 – Forget North Korea, Obama team readies for confrontation with…Israel
    (Israel, for the uninformed and the anti-semitic left , is a US ally)

    Perhaps you should refer to this disambiguation I provided for Neiman. Read it carefully and I’m sure you’ll be able to understand the nuance so that you don’t mistakenly and embarrassingly keep referring to people as bigots when they aren’t.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development